Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMERCIAL BANKING COMPANY OF SYDNEY LIMITED (MERGER) BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Monday 26 July.

CUMBRIA BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 27 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Criminal Injuries (Compensation)

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current level of grant given by his Department to the national victim support scheme; and how this compares with the assistance available generally to victims of violent crime.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to monitor the efficiency of the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): For 1982–83 the amount of Government grant to the national association of victims support schemes is £23,450, two-thirds from the Home Office and one-third from the Department of Health and Social Security. Under the criminal injuries compensation scheme over £22 million a year is now paid from public funds to victims of violent crime.
My Department keeps in close touch with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to ensure that the scheme is administered as officiently as possible. The board's efficiency is currently the subject of a review under the supervision of Sir Derek Rayner.

Mr. Alton: I welcome that review, but is the Home Secretary aware that the latest figures for Merseyside show that during the past six months 24,000 homes were burgled? That is an average of one every 10 minutes. Does

the right hon. Gentleman agree that in areas such as Merseyside, where there has been an 11 per cent. increase in crime during the past month, there is a need to spend more to prevent crime, particularly by providing intruder alarms for elderly people?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is a great deal more to be done in crime prevention, which is important, and the police are giving it specific attention. It would be difficult to achieve that by helping people, but I shall consider that point.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the Home Secretary ensure that the review pays special attention to the delay in making compensation payments? The mothers of two murdered boys have had to wait 18 months for financial compensation.

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, most certainly. I believe that that is very important.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of reducing crime, and therefore the compensation paid to victims, is to use the results of some of the studies financed by the Home Office to ensure that parents of young people who are involved in crime recognise the initial signs of misbehaviour and are thus helped to deal with their children more effectively? That is the way to stop crime increasing.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is an important point. It has implications in children's early lives and in our schools. I am discussing those matters with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Home Secretary aware that there are a number of useful local victim support schemes in various parts of the country? Those schemes, which are starved of money, make good use of volunteers. Will he look into the possibility of providing such schemes with money so that they can continue to do useful work?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman knows that we support only the national victim support scheme. I believe that the local schemes should be carried out on a loca1 basis, while we support the national scheme.

Solvent Abuse

Miss Boothroyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given advice to local statutory bodies falling within the responsibility of his Department on the subject of solvent sniffing; and whether Her Majesty's Government plan any new initiatives in this area.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services intends to consult statutory and voluntary agencies about ways of strengthening and supporting their work on solvent abuse. These will include the local statutory bodies for which we are responsible.

Miss Boothroyd: I accept that legislation is not the complete answer, but if we have a duty to protect the health of young people by restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco, should we not prevent them from obtaining solvent-based glues? Therefore, should there not be legislation? I am delighted to hear that the DHSS is making some effort towards prevention and detection. However, as a senior Secretary of State, will the Home


Secretary bring together all the Departments and take an initiative to provide the finance—which is very important—for the local statutory and voluntary bodies to carry out such work?

Mr. Mayhew: We should do all that we can to solve the problem. However, I cannot accept that the Government have a duty to prevent young people from obtaining access to solvent-based goods, because they are so numerous. For example, nail varnish and nail varnish remover, and I do not know what else, are solvent-based goods. We must help people to learn about the dangers, and the best way is to consult the bodies to which I referred.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to try out a law that makes it illegal to sniff solvents in a public place? It is ridiculous that groups of youngsters should be able to sniff glue in public parks and that the authorities can do nothing about it. If the Government will not take action, will my hon. and learned Friend agree to an authority, such as Southend, having a byelaw to that effect?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that at present it would be wise to create such a criminal offence. If a person is liable to become violent when intoxicated, it does not make any difference whether his intoxication is due to alcohol or solvent sniffing. However, we must ensure that the police are able to crack down on violent behaviour, so that it is prevented in every sensible and practical way.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman not underestimate the seriousness of solvent sniffing, as it has led to fatalities among young people? Will he ensure that the incidence of solvent sniffing is monitored? If he does not know the extent of it, he cannot assess the seriousness of the problem or decide whether the advice given by the Home Office is effective in its results.

Mr. Mayhew: I agree that the problem is serious, and we take it as such. It is right to say that there have been deaths, but not the least of the objections to making the public sniffing of glue a crime is that sniffing might then be done in secrecy and any resulting accident would probably be out of reach of help. We must take that into account.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not the truth of the matter that many things can be abused? Razor blades can be used for cutting throats and electric power points can be used to electrocute people. Whereas tobacco and alcohol are used for smoking and drinking, glue is primarily used for sticking. If the Government accept responsibility for controlling the abuse of everything in the United Kingdom, they will impose an intolerable burden on the nation.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which I entirely agree. We have a duty to help people to understand that, in certain circumstances, making a mistake and behaving unwisely should not be a criminal offence.

Citizens Band Radio

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward legislation to strengthen the enforcement powers available to control illegal citizens band transmission and to provide powers to ban the sale of illicit equipment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): It remains our intention to bring such legislation forward as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Mr. Taylor: The problem is urgent. Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people ask why they should pay a substantial television licence fee when reception is upset by illegal CB radios? Why do we allow illegal equipment to be imported and sold when it cannot be used legally? It is nonsense to allow people to buy goods that cannot be used legally.

Mr. Raison: I agree that the problem is urgent. We hope that the necessary provisions will be included in the telecommunications legislation foreshadowed in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on 19 July. Our proposals will cover the sale and advertising of equipment that we do not want.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: There are delays of up to six months in my part of the country between a complaint being made and its investigation by the enforcement authorities. What are the Government doing to increase the number of staff available for such duties?

Mr. Raison: We are very concerned about the problem, and we recognise that delays take place. In conjunction with the police and the radio interference service we are trying to ensure that the problem is tackled as vigorously as possible. However, the House will recognise that the police, in particular, have many other calls on their time.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that legal users are causing interference and that many television viewers are having to buy new sets or—if they rent sets—to pay extra to have them modified to circumvent the interference?

Mr. Raison: We have never concealed the fact that problems would arise from legal 27MHz FM sets as well as from illegal sets. However, I have no doubt that the great bulk of interference derives from the illegal sets on the market. The sooner people stop using them, the better for all concerned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does illegal CB transmission include the use of equipment that is not licensed? Is not the reason that it is not licensed the high licence fee? Is there not massive licence evasion and will the right hon. Gentleman reduce the fee in the proposed legislation?

Mr. Raison: I reject the hon. Gentleman's contention. A licence fee of £10 is perfectly fair, and that is borne out by the fact that nearly 300,000 licences have been issued.

Truancy and Juvenile Crime

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to initiate a study into the relationship of juvenile crime and school truancy.

Mr. Mayhew: Research has clearly established that truancy and delinquency are significantly related. The aim must, of course, be to reduce both. The Department is funding research into a truancy project to test the effectiveness of one means of enforcing school attendance.

Mr. Heddle: I welcome the Department's initiative, but does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is the primary duty not of teachers but of parents to ensure that


their children attend school and do not play truant? Therefore, is he satisfied that the law is adequate to ensure that parents are brought to book if their children play truant and engage in juvenile crime?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. The Education Act 1944 provides a maximum penalty of £200 on the first and second convictions for failing to ensure that a child attends school regularly. I was infuriated to see in The Times that the Hackney branch of the National Union of Teachers had ordered its members not to co-operate with the police. If my teacher took that attitude towards the police, I would want to play truant.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister take account of the fact that on any given day the truancy level in schools is less than 20 per cent.—[Interruption]—that Parliament's voting record shows that, on average, 50 per cent. of hon. Members vote, and that the figure for the SDP is about 30 per cent.? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also look into adult crime and parliamentary truancy?

Mr. Mayhew: There is great significance in the hon. Gentleman's general point. I note that whenever there is a debate on law and order the Opposition Benches are nearly always deserted.

Telephone Tapping

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet Lord Diplock to discuss his reviews of telephone tapping.

Mr. Whitelaw: Lord Bridge of Harwich has now taken over from Lord Diplock as judicial monitor of the arrangements for the interception of communications set out in Cmnd. 7873. I meet the judicial monitor whenever this is necessary in the course of his duties.

Mr. Cryer: Given the incredible story of incompetence and indifference at Buckingham Palace when dealing with the Head of State, how can the Home Secretary be sure that the rules governing telephone tapping, which is a serious invasion of privacy, are followed by the police when dealing with ordinary citizens? Would it not help to break down the immunity from accountability that encourages abuse if the Bridge reports—as they are now to be called—were regularly published as a necessary element of accountability in a democratic State?

Mr. Whitelaw: I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's first point yesterday.
Lord Bridge will make his reports, as previously, to the Prime Minister, and they will be carefully considered.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Home Secretary realise that the whole issue needs to be covered by statute law very soon? Does he intend to introduce a Bill on data protection next year? If so, can Parliament be certain that the police will not have indiscriminate access to computer-held records on ordinary citizens which cover a whole range of matters?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot anticipate the legislative programme for the next Session. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient.

Data Protection (BMA Representations)

Mr. Pitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the British Medical Association's representations to him about the White Paper on data protection.

Mr. Raison: The British Medical Association has been thanked for its written comments on the Government's proposals. The association requested a meeting to discuss its comments, and that is being arranged.

Mr. Pitt: In view of the sensitivity of medical records, and in the light of the previous question, does the Minister agree that legislation on data protection should impose a statutory obligation on those keeping medical records not to allow access to them to a wide range of people, including the police, unless it is absolutely necessary?

Mr. Raison: We have always accepted the importance of medical records being kept confidential. We shall have close consultations with the medical profession. It is likely that the Bill will provide regulations.

Mr. Forman: What representations has my right hon. Friend had on the subject? Do they suggest that it would be wise to legislate as speedily as possible?

Mr. Raison: More than 180 organisations and members of the public responded to the White Paper. There has been broad support for the legislative proposals. We hope to press ahead.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister of State referred to the contents of a Bill. Is that the Bill that the Home Secretary will not anticipate being in next year's programme?

Mr. Raison: We have made it clear that we intend to legislate. The customary way of doing that is through a Bill, and that will come.

Pensioners (Television Licences)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many concessionary television licences are issued to pensioners.

Mr. Raison: In March 1982 about 16,000 old persons' home television licences were in force. They covered slightly fewer than 500,000 pensioners.

Mr. Dixon: I remind the Minister that the Home Secretary, during the debate on concessionary TV licences, said:
It would be a hard-faced decision to take away something that people already have".—[Official Report, 16 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 357.]
Is the Minister aware that his Department has taken away 7,564 concessionary TV licences from old-age pensioners on South Tyneside, thereby robbing them of more than £114,000 a year? Does that not make the Home Secretary a hard-faced man?

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend was referring to the old-age pensioners scheme in general. The pensioners on South Tyneside who received the concession were never entitled to it. They have been lucky for a time, but it would not be fair in future to allow them a concession which nobody else has.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-party pensioners group has been pressing the Government for some time to consider a concessionary


television licence scheme which is just and fair? Is it possible that the Government may at some time move towards such a scheme, or are we wasting our time?

Mr. Raison: I should be reluctant to tell my hon. Friend that he is wasting his time, but I cannot hold out hope that we shall legislate. To provide free television licences for all pensioners would cost £250 million and mean putting up the colour television licence fee to about £70.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Would it not help to reduce the licence fee if hotels were charged a fee for each television set in each room rather than paying just one fee?

Mr. Raison: I understand that argument. We have been thinking about it. We shall announce our views in due course.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that the most contentious issue is that pensioners in warden-controlled houses pay 5p a year for their television licence while others pay the full fee? Is he further aware that many pensioners would be prepared to pay a Hate rate so that everybody pays the same? Does he accept that such a fee could be one-quarter or one-third of the full licence fee?

Mr. Raison: There are inconsistencies in the concession. We have thought carefully about many proposals, but I am not in a position to tell the House that we shall introduce a new scheme.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that within five miles of a county town, such as Exeter, old-age pensioners and others cannot receive television? Is he further aware that, although there is to be a fourth programme and breakfast television, people paying the present licence cannot receive the existing service? Does he accept that that is intolerable? Yet the authorities refuse to do anything about it.

Mr. Raison: There are small pockets where it is difficult to receive television. The authorities are doing a good deal to try to remedy that. I accept that more must be done, but we should not hold up other developments in television on that account.

Representation of the People (Legislation)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Representation of the People Acts.

Mr. Mayhew: There are a number of matters with which we are not satisfied, but we cannot promise legislation in the near future.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that thousands of people in Britain who are entitled to vote in our elections are not British nationals and do not want to be? When the British Nationality Act comes into force next year, should we not restrict the suffrage to British citizens?

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right about the numbers. I note his point, which he also made in the Daily Mail today.

Mr. Skinner: How much was he paid for that?

Mr. Mayhew: In that article my hon. Friend said that only British citizens should have the right to vote and that

not even Commonwealth citizens resident here should have that right. To discontinue the Irish vote would be consistent with that, but such a policy would give rise to wider considerations than those for which the Home Secretary is responsible.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Leaving aside the totally unfair concept adumbrated by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of all electors that statutory notices relating to local and national elections should be as widely read as possible? Why are there no plans to ensure that such notices are published in ethnic minority languages in areas where large ethnic minorities reside?

Mr. Mayhew: Nobody can disagree with the principle that when it is necessary for people to have a notice of something important that is to happen the notice should be effective. I am prepared to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but one must draw a line somewhere. When people come to live in Britain and wish to exercise civic rights and responsibilities, they must make an effort to learn the language.

Mr. Edward Gardner: When the British Nationality Act comes into force on 1 January next year and for the first time allows plainly identifiable citizenship to be enjoyed by those who want to live here—British citizens—why should anyone without that qualification be allowed to vote in a British general election?

Mr. Mayhew: That would involve requiring Commonwealth citizens resident here who have had the right to vote in our elections for many years to become British citizens by naturalisation. That policy can be considered, but it has wider implications.

Mr. Hattersley: May I ask the Minister about a different amendment to the Act? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Members on both sides of the House are bewildered by the recommendations that are from time to time made by the Boundary Commission?
Will the Minister consider requiring the Boundary Commission to express its reasons when making recommendations?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I believe that the arrangements that Parliament has made, which have stood for many years, governing the allocation of seats by a wholly independent body—the Boundary Commission—are the best. I shall not give the assurance requested by the right hon. Gentleman.

Robberies with Violence

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in robberies involving violence in the period 1972 to 1982.

Mr. Mayhew: In 1981 about 20,000 offences of robbery, which entails either the use or the threat of violence, were recorded by the police in England and Wales. This is about 11,000 offences more than were recorded in 1972 and is equivalent to an average annual recorded increase over this period of about 10 per cent.

Mr. Penhaligon: May I press the Minister further on his views on intruder alarms? Does he agree that Government financial assistance for local authorities


who wish to provide these systems for the elderly in high crime areas is justified and reasonable and that it will do much to increase security?

Mr. Mayhew: This is a matter for individual local authorities to consider. Their expenditure is grant-aided. The best single deterrent to a potential robber is having plenty of policemen on the beat. There are now 8,800 more police officers in the service in England and Wales since my right hon. Friend became Home Secretary. That is a substantial contribution.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. and learned Friend concede that many of the crimes included in the shocking statistics given to the House are committed by young people? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that parents and schoolteachers should tell young people to have respect for people and also private and public property? Does my hon. and learned Friend further agree that if that were done in homes and schools there would be a much reduced increase in violent crime?

Mr. Mayhew: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. We cannot succeed in the fight against crime until the standards of ordinary people are enlisted to point out how cruel, unfair, and dangerous robbery, for example, is. It is wicked for teachers and their unions in Hackney and, I believe, Lambeth to instruct their members to withdraw co-operation with the police in their schools.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Minister aware that I, and many others, deplore the advice that is being proffered by some irresponsible elements in Hackney? Does he agree that effective liaison with the police is necessary so that suspicions can be eliminated, and that the best course towards that objective is to ensure that the closest relationship and co-operation are enjoyed with the police? Does the Minister recognise that the local commander has given a significant lead in that respect?

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I expected nothing less from him. It would be valuable if condemnation from higher quarters in his party was expressed for what has happened. Anything that serves to encourage young people to believe that the police are not their friends, but are their enemies, is extremely dangerous.

Mr. Farr: To what extent does my hon. and learned Friend think that an increase in crime is due to the fact that the courts often seem to be unaware of, or are unwilling to implement, the full range of penalties laid down by Parliament?

Mr. Mayhew: The maximum sentence for robbery with violence is life, but it is for the courts to determine where in the range of sentences the proper line is to be drawn. The courts do sentence to life imprisonment those convicted of robbery with violence, but I should not be inclined to say that the courts should do so on more occasions. That is a matter for the courts, and it is a very important distinction.

Mr. Snape: As the Conservative Party regularly professes concern about law and order, will the Minister of State tell the House why crimes of violence have increased so dramatically and why, since 1979, detection rates for such crimes have plunged equally dramatically?

Mr. Mayhew: One of the handicaps for the police is that people are much more mobile today. Communications

are much better and people are more sophisticated. That makes it harder to detect a crime. It would be very much easier for the police if support for them in their difficulties came from both sides of the House instead of disproportionate criticism, which adds to their lot.

Video Cassettes

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange to collect centrally information on convictions under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, as amended in 1964, relating wholly or mainly to video cassettes.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in addition to his routine consideration of the operation of the law relating to video cassettes, he will take steps to set up a formal independent review with terms of reference which would allow the recommendation of additional legislation.

Mr. Raison: We understand from the Commissioner that the figures for the Metropolitan Police district for 1982 will identify separately prosecutions relating to video cassettes. We have no plans to extend such recording to other police forces in England and Wales.
We do not think that it is necessary to institute a formal review of the need for additional legislation in respect of video cassettes. We shall continue to keep the operation of the law under review in the light, among other matters, of the consideration which is currently being given to the introduction of a classification system.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem is not confined to London but has spread to areas such as Brighton and Hove? Will he agree with the Williams committee at least to the extent that pictures are much more dangerous in matters of obscenity and violence than the written word, and that a video cassette is infinitely more dangerous than a still picture? Bearing in mind the difficulty for the police in determining whether any given cassette is obscene and in breach of the law, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wise to extend monitoring throughout the country so that we can see whether the review of the law to which he referred, and for which I am grateful, should be followed by action?

Mr. Raison: I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about the sale and rental of video cassettes which show scenes of extreme violence and horror, and about the picture image. This is something that must be kept closely under observation, and if the need for additional information from other parts of the country becomes clear we shall certainly follow that up.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Obscene Publications Act, which was last amended nearly 20 years ago, is now largely irrelevant to the booming new video cassette industry? Will he bear in mind that the Williams committee did not consider video cassettes, or even mention them in its report? Does he agree that a review of the law as it refers to video cassettes is urgently needed?

Mr. Raison: In addition to the Obscene Publications Act, Customs legislation, the Indecent Displays (Control) Act, the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act and the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act may all have some bearing in this sphere. Therefore, there is


substantial legislation. However, I agree that we must ensure that the legislation does its job effectively. If the classification system cannot be made to work we shall need to consider further legislation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: May I press my right hon. Friend a shade further? Is he aware of the widespread concern about the harmful, if not extremely objectionable, nature of some video cassettes? Is he satisfied that the Home Office is fully aware of the production, distribution and availability of cassettes, particularly to children and young people?

Mr. Raison: I assure my hon. Friend that we are very much aware of the great anxiety that has been expressed about that, and in particular about the problems concerning the younger members of our community. It would be difficult for me to provide special regulations for the young, but this is something that we must look at in the light of the proposed classification system.

Mr. Spearing: Since the Minister has acknowledged that this is a problem, particularly in London, is he aware that the impression has gained ground, notably in my constituency, that the Metropolitan Police are taking, as yet, little action against these terrible machines and these video cassettes showing extreme violence? Will the Minister assure the House that the police are taking action? If he cannot do that, will he look into the matter and write to me?

Mr. Raison: I am sure that the problem is being taken seriously. I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether to institute proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 in respect of certain cassettes.

Shoplifting (Acquittals)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women have been acquitted of shoplifting charges during the past 12 months for which records are available.

Mr. Mayhew: In 1980, the latest year for which figures are available, about 2,700 males and 3,000 females were acquitted of shoplifting charges in England and Wales.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that many of those 5,000 people who were acquitted underwent the most awful trials before they reached court? Does he accept that the law on shoplifting is archaic in its enforcement? Does he further agree that the decision to prosecute should be left to the police so that they can decide, as do the Essex police, not to prosecute where it is in the interest of the public that the elderly and the ill should be dealt with medically and in other ways?

Mr. Mayhew: There is a lot to be said for the sensible use of cautioning, which is widely used. But it must be a matter for local discretion. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Royal Commission recommended that private prosecution should be discontinued for shoplifting. The Government have the recommendation under consideration and we shall announce our conclusions in due course.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that it is now 10 years since, in an Adjournment debate,

I raised this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who was then the Minister of State, Home Office, and who clearly accepted the direct link between self-service shopping and the increase in shoplifting? Does he agree that in the meantime his Department has done nothing to deal with the matter? What movement does he foresee in the next 10 years?

Mr. Mayhew: The review has been the subject of reconsideration and revision and that process is very nearly finished. One cannot be wholly surprised that more shoplifting, proportionately, takes place in self-service stores. But stealing from a shop is still stealing. A person does not commit the offence of stealing unless dishonest intent is proved.

Association of Magisterial Officers (Meeting)

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet representatives of the Association of Magisterial Officers to discuss conditions of work of staff.

Mr. Mayhew: We have received no request from the association for a meeting but if it makes such a request we shall consider it.

Mr. Trippier: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that proposals emanating from the Justices Clerks Society suggest that all magistrates' court clerks should be qualified lawyers? When the proposals reach my hon. and learned Friend or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will they bear in mind that many non-qualified but experienced clerks may wish to see their posts protected and some who may wish to become qualified may require financial assistance to do so?

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall be glad to consider any points put to us by the association, including the implications for staff already working in the service who are not professionally qualified. The scope for financing professional training of such staff is one aspect that we shall need to consider.

Data Protection

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the delay in bringing the United Kingdom into line with European and other international data protection standards.

Mr. Raison: We intend to legislate as soon as practicable. Only a few of the respondents to our White Paper have indicated that they would like to have seen legislation introduced before now. Others have recognised the benefits of being able to learn from the experience of other countries.

Mr. Dubs: Is it not intolerable that there should be many secret records of individuals kept throughout the country and that, although the information may be incorrect it could be used to the disadvantage of the individual? Will the Minister ensure that the forthcoming legislation includes the right of the individual to inspect the records and correct them if they are wrong?

Mr. Raison: In general terms, yes, but in certain areas exemption is permitted under the Council of Europe convention.

Mr. Lawrence: Provided that it were possible to get the proposal on the legislation into the Gracious Speech, would it be practicable to legislate by Christmas of this year?

Mr. Raison: Even if the legislation were in the Gracious Speech, it would be extremely difficult.

Licensed Victuallers

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to legislate to allow licensed victuallers more flexible opening hours and to make more stringent the requirements which applicants must fulfil.

Mr. Raison: We have no plans for legislation in this area.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that at my parliamentary interview I met a group of licensed victuallers who are nearing bankruptcy as a result of the discrimination against people employed in the local pub? Will he consider their proposals for more flexible opening hours and at least give them the right to compete with other licensed premises by allowing greater prizes on the gaming machines?

Mr. Raison: We are aware of the anxiety of the licensed victuallers. They have made representations to us. We have also followed what has happened in Scotland over licensing hours. We are not yet persuaded that we should legislate in the near future, but we shall doubtless keep the matter under review.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the ridiculous state of affairs surrounding licensing laws? When will he announce that he will put the recommendations of the Errol report into effect?

Mr. Raison: I recognise the anomalies, but we must also recognise the widespread worry about alcohol consumption and the fact that there is a lack of agreement about what action to take.

Mr. Snape: Are not the pub licensing laws a legacy of the First World War? Like other archaic practices, having been around for so long, should they not be swept away? Is it not time that the libertarians on the Conservative Benches joined those on the Opposition Benches to introduce flexible rosters for pub landlords?

Mr. Raison: It is easy to say that the present laws should be swept away. The problem is to find sufficient agreement on what to replace them with.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with King Hussein.

Mr. Marlow: Would my right hon. Friend tell His Majesty that we agree with him entirely that the

Palestinians must be permitted to determine their own future, including, if it is their will, the establishment of a Palestinian State on the West Bank of Gaza, and that if the PLO, as their only effective representative, as part of a package agrees with the right of Israel to exist behind secure defensible frontiers, Her Majesty's Government will do all that they can to help to bring about Palestinian satisfaction in that direction?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, our commitment to Palestinian self-determination is a matter of record. We take every opportunity to press the PLO to accept Israel's right to live in peace behind secure borders and to renounce terrorism. If it would do both of those things it would be a tremendous step forward.
With regard to a State, I believe that my hon. Friend would agree that these matters are complex and that it would not be for us to draw the boundaries of a new State, particularly if one believes in self-determination. Bearing in mind that there are about 3 million Palestinians scattered about the Middle East, self-determination would not be easy.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady had a chance today to study the extremely important review published by the Confederation o r British Industry? Does it not call for a fresh statement of policy by the Government? How does she reconcile the statement with the rosy rubbish about a coming upturn that she has preached for almost two years?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the CBI called for a reduction in interest rates. Interest rates have already fallen 4 per cent. since last autumn. It also called for a further reduction in national insurance surcharge, and the cut made in the last Budget will benefit industry to the extent of £640 million in the year 1982–83. The cut will start to take effect in 10 days' time, which the CBI may have forgotten. It also called for a reduction in local authority rates. Many of us would like local authority rates to be lower. I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would indicate where he thinks expenditure should be cut first.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady accept that one of the most important aspects of the report is that it covers the 13 regions of the country, almost all of which say that things are getting worse and not better? Does she not understand that the report states that the situation has deteriorated since the Budget, which was supposed to make things better? Does she not have a special responsibility for the collapse of British industry and the appalling unemployment figures?

The Prime Minister: I believe that what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at is that he wants an artificial stimulus to demand. Demand is already increasing. It went up 3 per cent. in the year ending in March. The trouble is that too much went in increased imports. Only British industry can ensure that increased demand means more jobs at home rather than more jobs abroad.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady really saying that she will have nothing better than that to say to the CBI when it comes to see her in the next few days?

The Prime Minister: Interest rates have already fallen. They would not have fallen if we had not kept a tight grip on the deficit. That is a matter on which we have had no


help whatsoever from the right hon. Gentleman. It was the Labour Government of which he was a member who clapped on an enormous national insurance surcharge.

Mr. Winnick: Resign.

The Prime Minister: The Government, in this Budget, are at last reducing it and are starting to undo the devastating effect of the Labour Government. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, may I point out an excellent speech from the new president of the CBI? He said that
the 1980s will not be a decade of growth for most of us, but of intense competition as the world adjusts itself to the vast overcapacity that is obvious in so many industries. It's a war and … the victors will be the efficient.
It is up to British industry and British management to secure that efficiency.

Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister had time to read the full account in The Guardian yesterday of the investigations of Operation Countryman? Is she aware that lists of names of the police officers concerned have been made available to some hon. Members on both sides of the House? In view of the difficulty of bringing successful prosecutions, what other action does the Prime Minister propose should be taken to end what seems to be a network of corruption that threatens to bring our police force into disrepute?

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that the police are the first to wish to uproot any corruption that there may be. They always have been, because they are the first to wish to protect their good name. I am concerned about the fact that everyone, but everyone, is hitting out at the police at the moment. I believe that the vast majority of police officers carry out their duties magnificently and put themselves at risk so that we may be protected. I would point out that six police officers have lost their lives in England and Wales this year while carrying out their duties.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 15 months ago hon. Members from both sides of the House approached the Charity Commissioners about the charitable status of the Unification Church in Britain? In view of her concern about the activities of the "Moonies" in Britain and the fact that Sun Moon has now been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in the United States of America for embezzling the funds of that organisation, is it not time that we did something about it in this country?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has asked me questions of this type before. I entirely agree with him that this matter is taking an extremely long time. I am in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about it, but we are limited as to the speed with which the Charity Commissioners are able to discharge their duties.

Mr. Best: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the dedication and devotion to duty of our National Health Service workers? Will she congratulate health workers such as all of those in my constituency who, without

exception, reported for work during the past three days of industrial action and were prepared to put the care of patients above the care of their pay packets?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. The vast majority of workers in the National Health Service have carried on working splendidly, believing, as my hon. Friend points out, that their duty is to the sick, and they are determined to carry out that duty. I visited the hospitals where those who were maimed through the Provisional IRA bombings are having treatment. The dedication of all the staff there was absolutely splendid and we are all grateful for it.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the Prime Minister confirm that more young people and school leavers are out of work today than ever before? Is she aware that the Samaritans run an excellent service but that their telephone lines are chock-a-block with calls from young people asking for help and assistance? When the right hon. Lady goes to St. Paul's next week, will she cut out the pomp and ceremony and exercise a little more penitence?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am always prepared to exercise penitence—[Interruption.]—This is not a laughing matter. I am always prepared to exercise penitence, especially at a service of thanksgiving for the liberation of the Falkland Islands and of remembrance for the fallen who gave their lives to secure that.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about school leavers, yes, there are more out of work. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has the largest ever programme to help both school leavers and young people who are unemployed to find jobs and training. Those jobs are not found by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches rising with pomp and circumstance; they are found by those who can create jobs instead of talking about them.

Mr. Trippier: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that 120 people employed by the Labour Party headquarters have been offered a zero pay increase because their employers cannot afford to pay more? Does that not show that realism in pay affects even the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for it, but I have just read such reports. Some people seem to take a different view when it is pay out of their own pockets from the view that they take when it is pay out of the public purse.

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dean: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the plight of the adult unemployed? Is she aware that if they wish to take part in the part-time adult education courses that are available they have to suffer the loss of some of their unemployment benefit? Does she think that that is fair and equitable, and will she examine the matter urgently and sympathetically?

The Prime Minister: Some changes have just been made with regard to the 21-hours rule, which I hope have helped. Unemployment pay is payable only to people who are available for work. That has always been so. Apart from that, there are a number of schemes that are available


to help the adult unemployed, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the regulations have, to some extent, dealt with his point.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roy Jenkins.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: In view—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard. [Interruption.] Order. The House does not ration whether I call a Liberal and a Social Democrat. This House does not stand for free speech if it tries to limit who will be called.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of, amongst other things, the CBI statement, does the right hon. Lady now recognise that the orchestrated ministerial optimism of the early summer about the economy has proved to be entirely misplaced and that recovery is not on the way and unemployment is not falling?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the longer leading indicators forecast that there would be a plateau. He will have seen that the longer leading indicators published recently—I think that there are some today—are forecasting a further recovery. He will be aware of the great difficulty with unemployment in the Western industrialised economies and the causes for that. He will also recollect that he was a member of a Government who introduced the national insurance surcharge, which the CBI wish to see removed.

Sir William Clark: In view of the ghastly and cowardly bombings that the country experienced earlier this week, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is about time that we had a look at the reintroduction of capital punishment for indiscriminate murder? Does she

also agree that many people in this country have no allegiance to the Crown and that it is high time that we had a look at the position of citizens of Southern Ireland who have the right to vote in our elections?

The Prime Minister: We recently had a debate on capital punishment and I have no reason to believe that the result would be very different if we had another debate. With regard to Irish citizens, I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has any present plans to introduce further legislation.

Mr. Golding: Is the Prime Minister aware that not only the CBI yesterday, but the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, has called for increased public expenditure to reduce unemployment? How long will the Prime Minister continue to ignore the sound practical common sense coming from both sides of industry?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that nations that have taken the reflationary course have recently had to reverse it. For example, France has had two devaluations, has had to introduce a prices anti incomes policy and has had to cut its expenditure, including capital expenditure, once again. The reflationary course did not work. France's unemployment is rising very fast, its interest rates are high and it is in even greater difficulty over the prospects of recovery.
I am also aware that the president of the CBI pointed out in an excellent speech that industry must be competitive if we are to survive and have greater prosperity. One of the main points that he made was that we must pay ourselves only for goods that we produce and must not put up unit labour costs.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rule from time out of mind about points of order is that they should be raised on the first available occasion. You have reasonably asked that points of order about Question Time should not be raised during Question Time, which is why I am raising this point now.
It has often happened in the past that Ministers have replied "This is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Minister for this or that". Today, we have twice had from Home Office Ministers answers of the form "This raises wider considerations", without those Ministers nominating the Department to which questions on the subject should be addressed.
That is an important matter for hon. Members, because we need to know to whom we should address questions. Although you, Mr. Speaker, are not responsible for Ministers' answers, you are responsible for questions accepted by the Table Office. May I ask that, in guarding the rights of hon. Members to ask questions, you should give guidance to Ministers to the effect that if they reply or imply that a question is not wholly for them they should say to whom it ought to be addressed?

Mr. Speaker: I think that if the hon. Member is not satisfied with an answer, the best course is for him to ask the Minister which Department he has in mind. It would be dangerous for me to start censoring Ministers' replies.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I hope that he will not pursue the matter too far. He knows, as well as any hon. Member, that I have no power to do what he asks me to do.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot, without catching your eye, ask a second supplementary question. I am not permitted to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously I did not make myself as clear as I should have. I was advising the hon. Gentleman to corner the Minister when he left the Chamber. It is not a matter for the whole House and it is certainly not a matter for me. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave it there.

Mr. Frank Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have today a Business Statement and three other important statements. Will you please indicate the time that you are considering allotting for supplementary questions on each statement?

Mr. Speaker: It would be unwise of me to do that until I have heard the statements.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JULY—Until about 7 o'clock, motions on the Housing Benefits Regulations, the Housing Benefits (Permitted Totals for Local Schemes) Regulations and the Supplementary Benefit (Housing Benefits) Regulations.
Remaining stages of the Legal Aid Bill [Lords]
Motions on the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Schemes for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland Orders.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Assembly (Day of Election) Order.
TUESDAY 27 JULY—Supply [29th Alloted Day]: there will be a debate on an Opposition motion on mass unemployment.
The House will be asked to pass all outstanding Votes.
Motion on the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (Electoral Scheme) Order.
WEDNESDAY 28 JULY—Remaining stages of the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Valuation (Postponement of Revaluation) (Scotland) Order.
Remaining stages of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Bill.
THURSDAY 29 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
FRIDAY 30 JUNE—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer adjournment until Monday 18th October.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having rearranged some of the proposed business to take account of representations that we have made. We are grateful to him for that. However, as regards the debate on unemployment, the unemployment figures are the highest ever recorded in our history. A special report published today by the CBI reveals that all regions are affected by the industrial collapse. For the Government not to provide time for a discussion of this matter is a gross dereliction of their duty. They should have responded weeks ago to our demands and they should certainly provide time for a debate next week. We have provided the time because the Government refused to do so.
There is another matter on which I have urged the right hon. Gentleman to make representations but on which we have not had a satisfactory reply, and we are not prepared for the House to rise before the matter is dealt with. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy makes a statement to the House on the sale of BNOC assets and how that will be managed without a repetition of the shameful fiasco of the Amersham International affair?
The Leader of the House told me last week that the Secretary of State will say something in reply to a question on Monday next week. That is not satisfactory, particularly when we are dealing with the Secretary of State for Energy, who is not trusted on these matters in the


House generally. Before the House rises we ought to have a statement from the Secretary of State or an absolute guarantee that he will not take action on the matter while the House is in recess.

Mr. Biffen: As I said last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy plans to deal comprehensively with the sale of BNOC assets during his Question Time on Monday. I will certainly again draw to his attention the anxieties of the Leader of the Opposition and the terms in which he has expressed them.
I accept at once that unemployment is a matter of major social and economic import. It is not true to say that the House has been deprived of opportunities to debate the matter. During the past few weeks the subject was debated on the Liberal Supply day, and a Supply day was devoted to regional and industrial policy. In Government time, there were the days devoted to the Report stage of the Finance Bill, affecting the economy generally. I accept that the Opposition are performing a most constructive service in making a Supply day available for this debate next week.

Mr. John Stokes: When will the motion be taken for the summer Adjournment?

Mr. Biffen: On Thursday 29 July.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Leader of the House recall that as long ago as 1 July the Leader of the Opposition asked for a debate on the order on mandatory student grants? Is he aware that he laid that order on 16 July, and that it was prayed against immediately by my hon. Friends? Does he not feel that he has failed in his duty as Leader of the House in not providing time for this important matter, either late at night on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Committee?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman raises a point of genuine difficulty. I recognise the validity of what he says. I shall certainly look into the possibility of taking the matter upstairs in the overspill.

Sir William Clark: As next week seems to be somewhat busy, and an extra debate would mean that we had to go into August—something that I would not wish to do—will my right hon. Friend nevertheless give an assurance that, when we come back on 18 October, we shall discuss the Scott report?

Mr. Biffen: I very much hope that that will be possible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What has become of the code of conduct arising from the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was supposed to be debated before August, in connection with sites of special scientific interest? Secondly, should not the Government have been more candid, since it is clear from the Prime Minister's written answers that they knew that Lord Franks had the appalling burden of a cataract hanging over him? Should the House not have been told about that when we debated the Falkland Islands inquiry two Thursdays ago?

Mr. Biffen: I answered the hon. Gentleman's second point when he raised it in the same manner last week. I have nothing further to add. Certainly I have no knowledge which suggests that Lord Franks will not be able to carry out his duties as chairman of the committee.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am not in a position to give him an immediate answer, but I shall have the matter investigated and have a word with him.

Mr. Dalyell: Thank you.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the much-resented and anomalous right of the citizens of the Irish Republic to vote in elections here?

Mr. Biffen: The topicality of that issue makes it likely to appear in the debates on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Now that there is renewed concern among workers in the asbestos industry about the risks to their health and possibly to their lives, and more evidence has been produced by Yorkshire Television, could we have a debate on the risks in that industry as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once the great importance of the diseases associated with asbestos working. I can only say that I cannot hold out any hope of having a debate next week, but I have no doubt that the television programme will have heightened public interest in the matter.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: Will the Leader of the House inquire whether a debate would be justified before the House goes into recess into allegations that a Minister at the Foreign Office has exercised improper pressure on the British Atlantic Committee, which has led to the resignation of the director of that body?

Mr. Biffen: I do not have any information on the matter, but I shall make inquiries.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend first accept congratulations on his proposal to get the House up before August? On a rather more serious note, will there be a Government statement before the recess asking the Trades Union Congress if it could make available, before the House resumes, its ideas about what the special cases in pay might be during the coming 12 months, and thus avoid the unsightly spectacle of the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers saying that he supports the National Health Service workers' demand for 12 per cent. in the same week that he asks for 31 per cent. for the miners?

Mr. Biffen: I had no intention of including a Government statement on this matter next week, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's argument, which he put in the guise of a question, will have been noted in the quarters to which I think it is directed.

Mr. John Home Robertson: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that yesterday the House gave its unanimous consent to the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) for leave to introduce a Bill to set up a Scottish Parliament? As that Bill relates exclusively to Scotland, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 20 October to be held in the Scottish Grand Committee, under Standing Order No. 67?

Mr. Biffen: In my view, the last Bill for a Scottish Parliament did irreparable harm to the then Leader of the House and, in view of that, I must say "No".

Sir Hugh Fraser: Will there be a statement on rating before the end of this parliamentary session?

Mr. Biffen: I think that that is most unlikely.

Mr. Russell Kerr: When may we expect a statement on the proposed privatisation of the National Maritime Institute in my constituency?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Industry, and I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments to him.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend observed the ever-increasing support for early-day motion 580 on Stansted airport?
[That this House, deeply concerned to achieve balanced economic growth throughout Great Britain, and believing that the proposed massive expansion of Stansted Airport would produce unjustifiable urban growth and congestion in North West Essex and East Hertfordshire, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to opt now for a policy which, while providing for a modest increase in activity at Stansted, subject to a fixed ceiling, would place the greater emphasis on taking all possible steps to expand the use of provincial airports to meet demand in the region of its origin, the case for which has been well documented and shown to be financially viable by various groups, notably the North of England Regional Consortium.]
Will the Government respond to parliamentary and public opinion, and make sure that a statement is made to the House before we rise?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a matter which is of intense interest in the South-East, but I cannot do other than repeat the answer that I gave to that question a few weeks ago—that, as long as the committee is still considering the evidence, it would be unwise for a Minister to make a statement which might prejudge the findings.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House will be aware that he and I have had correspondence about the retired Members' pension fund. In the light of the letter that he sent me today, to which he will receive a reply today, will he say whether his reply will be to hand in time for me to raise the matter on the Adjournment on Thursday, particularly if his reply is as unsatisfactory as his previous replies were.

Mr. Biffen: For the peace of all, my answer must be "Yes"—at least I will try.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their place.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), if there is to be a debate on airport policy around London and in the South-East, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the terms of reference of any such debate, whether next week, in the autumn, next year, or at any other time, will include ample reference to the heavy pressure on areas around Heathrow because of the vast number of flights there, the congestion and the noise? Will he make sure that those people receive the same consideration as people in Essex?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says, but I must emphasise that there is no possibility of a statement next week.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the multi-fibre

arrangement negotiations, whereby the Common Market Commission is presently instructed to report to the Council of Ministers by 30 September on the bilateral negotiations? As that will be in the recess, as Hong Kong is apparently already rejecting the earlier agreements, and as other major negotiations have already been concluded, is there not a need for the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House so that we can discuss the matter thouroughly before the House goes into recess?

Mr. Biffen: That would be an ideal topic for the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill debate.

Mr. John Roper (Farnworth): In view of the disturbing reports of the conditions in which some of our forces appear to be living in the Falkland Islands, will the Leader of the House try to arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House before the recess in order that hon. Members can question him on that matter?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Since the European Assembly has announced that it is setting up a slush fund for the 1984 European elections of about £45,000 for each European constituency, of which only £13,000 can be spent within our laws, may we have a debate to consider what should be done with the remaining £30,000 which is otherwise liable to find itself in the back pockets of the political parties? May we have a debate on whether that money should be accepted, and, if so, to consider under what conditions and how it should be controlled? As my right hon. Friend and all hon. Members know, money buys influence and influence in this area would be very dangerous indeed.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is a resourceful Member of Parliament and I should have thought that next week provides every opportunity for the free enterprise at which he is so adept.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 652 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Hoyle) concerning the disastrous soccer tour of South Africa.
[That this House calls upon the British Broadcasting Corporation, now that the disastrous football tour of South Africa has been called off, to dismiss Jimmy Hill for playing a leading role in a move designed to break the Gleneagles Agreement by restoring sporting links with apartheid-ridden South Africa, which must bring into question his impartiality as a sports commentator.]
Will the Home Secretary now ask the Chairman of the BBC to sack Mr. Jimmy Hill for his leading role in that ill-advised tour and his total disregard of the Gleneagles agreement?

Mr. Biffen: Again, that is the kind of controversial issue that could be well served by being discussed in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had time to consider early-day motion 518, which has been signed by over 160 hon. Members, concerning human rights abuses in Iran?
[That this House expresses its deep concern at the continuing executions in Iran, the increasing number of


people being tortured, and the lack of legal safeguards in trial procedures, and requests Her Majesty's Government to make known its condemnation to the Iranian authorities of these heinous human rights violations at every opportunity and to support the work of Amnesty International in combating them.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to speak to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary so that the Government's condemnation of mass executions in Iran may be known at every opportunity?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: My right hon. Friend will recognise that the Supply day debate on Tuesday is of great importance to the House. I am certain that many Labour Back Benchers will wish to contribute, and many hon. Members such as myself wish to tell the Opposition a few home truths about British industry. Will my right hon. Friend please arrange for statements not to be made on that day so that we have the maximum time for debate?

Mr. Biffen: I can give no guarantee of that, but I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As there is great concern in the arts world and among all hon. Members about the threat to the theatre museum project, as is evidenced by early-day motion 649, and since the Minister will make a decision on that matter in early August, would it not be advisable for the House to have a chance to express its views on that important museums project before the recess?
[That this House strongly supports the project of a Theatre Museum which has been in being now for over 50 years; welcomes the action of successive governments in supporting it; believes that the Museum would constitute a major cultural and literary centre as well as providing an important tourist attraction; and calls on the Government to proceed with the project as a matter of urgency.]

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that there will he an Adjournment debate on that subject on Thursday.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the way that mobility allowances for the seriously mentally disabled are being piled up unused by hospital administrations, will the Leader of the House arrange with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for a statement to be made as quickly as possible on how the Government propose to ensure that those disabled persons do have the benefit of that mobility allowance instead of the people who inherit after the death of those patients?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once the seriousness of the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Business of the House (Mr. Speaker's Statement)

Mr. Speaker: I have three short statements to make.
The House is aware that applications for a second Adjournment debate are not acceptable after 8 pm, for reasons that have been outlined before.
I have decided that it is in the interests of the House that applications for second Adjournment debates on a Friday will not be accepted after 10 am. It would be unreasonable to expect the people concerned to change their arrangements far a Friday after that hour.
For the debate on Thursday 29 July on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand in to my office by 9 am on Wednesday 28 July, their names and the topics they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his or her own name and one topic.
The debate will cover ail the main Estimates originally presented for the current financial year in House of Commons Papers Nos. 212 and 214, and the Supplementary and Revised Estimates presented since then in House of Commons Papers Nos. 429, 430, 431, 432 and 440. It will be in order on Second Reading to raise any topic falling within the compass of those Estimates.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on 28 July.
I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 30 July, up to eight hon. Members may raise, with Ministers, subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider the possibility that in due course you might wish to review your first statement in the light of experience? I make this point because on a normal week roughly five hours elapse between the start of proceedings and the expiration of the time at which applications for a second Adjournment debate can be made.
On a Friday morning only half an hour is being allowed and that is insufficient time for Back Benchers, first, to assess likely progress of the House, and, secondly to make the application to you. I accept that your ruling will stand for the time being, but I would ask you to give further consideration in the light of experience.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I shall review the position after a period. I am trying to consider those who have to answer debates as well as those who initiate them. People try to make their arrangements for the weekend. If the House does not approve, the position can easily be changed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that, in reviewing the position in the light of experience, you will consider that 11 o'clock is perhaps a more suitable time than 10 o'clock. That is the time when statements are normally made.
On another point, I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would look at c. 407 of yesterday's Official Report where two of the paragraphs are out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have noticed. There are mistakes in Hansard, and they will be corrected in the revised edition.

Mr. John Silkin: The House is grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your decision to consider the matter raised a moment ago. It is more difficult for the Opposition than for the Government.

Mr. Speaker: There should be conversations through the usual channels and then with me. I want to serve the interests of the House as a whole.

Council of Agriculture Ministers

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Councils which took place earlier this week.
At the Agriculture Council on 19–20 July, at which the United Kingdom was represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State Northern Ireland Office, agreement was reached upon a package of measures for the wine sector. I am pleased to inform the House that we obtained satisfactory safeguards for our alcohol and spirits industries.
On 20–21 July there was a meeting of the Fisheries Council at which I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The Danish delegation refused to approve measures involving agreements with Norway. This prevented the Commission from negotiating with the Norwegian Government on total allowable catches in respect of joint stocks which would have considerable impact upon quota allocations.
Nine member States agreed that until this negotiation could take place there could be no meaningful discussions on total allowable catches, quotas, and access. This was certainly the view of the United Kingdom Government, since important quotas for cod and herring are involved.
Therefore, it was agreed that negotiations on those major aspects would be resumed at a meeting of the Fisheries Council to be held in Luxembourg on 21 September. Agreement was reached on several implementing measures under the marketing regulation which will come into operation on 1 January 1983.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The first and most obvious matter is that the House would like to know exactly what the Minister means by "satisfactory safeguards for our alcohol and spirits industries." Is the industrial alcohol industry in Britain to be fully protected and, if so, how?
Although the statement was short, two extremely important matters arise from it. One would not have been unduly concerned about delay in a negotiation of this kind for two months were it not for the fact that, by the end of the year, the present fisheries agreement runs out. Is the Minister not negotiating with partners who have all the cards in their hands and who possess the veto, and is it not our fish that are at stake? Does the Minister agree?
Does the Minister agree that, as the Ministers are meeting again in September, as he has already surrendered to the French, and as the Danes are objecting and he is likely, in order to get agreement, to surrender to them eventually, it would be wrong for him to come to an agreement in Brussels while the House is still in recess? I hesitate to suggest that the House should be recalled to discuss the matter, but at least he should not come to an agreement with his Common Market partners in Brussels until he has had the terms of it ratified by the House on our return.
What does the Minister intend to do in the remaining two months of the year if no agreement is reached and the derogation runs out? He has told us that he has


contingency plans. The clock is ticking very loudly now. We need to know what the contingency plans are to protect our fishing stocks against the depredations that loom ahead for them.

Mr. Walker: The safeguards for alcohol are similar to those agreed at the 18 May Council, which were considered by the industry to be completely satisfactory. They applied to the intervention of wine distillates, and the new regulation stipulates that their disposal must not disturb markets for alcohol and spirit drinks. With regard to other distillates which receive FEOGA marketing aids, the Commission has stated, and categorically minuted, that it will not allow the aids for which it is responsible to undermine existing alcohol and spirit drink markets.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted—he always is at any success on the part of British negotiators—that total safeguards have been obtained. I can claim that it was a considerable achievement, because it was done by the Minister of State and not by me.
With regard to the fisheries negotiations, the hon. Gentleman suggested that we were negotiating with partners who were all waiting eagerly for the end of the year. Clearly that was not the case at the Council meeting, where we had the support of eight of the partners, all of whom want agreement to be reached as speedily as possible. I hope that there will be a successful settlement in September. That will be in the interests of our industry.
As for getting the prior approval of the House, my position is exactly the same as that of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) when he held my office.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions to run until 4.20 pm by the digital clock. If there are brief questions and brief answers, it should be possible to accommodate most of the hon. Members who wish to speak.

Sir Patrick Wall: As the settlement of the common fisheries policy has again been delayed, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House the exact legal position that we shall face next year concerning fishing up to the beaches? I do not expect him to go into details, because obviously he will wish to keep his hand covered.

Mr. Walker: The view of the British Government is that the wording of the treaties is such that, in the event of there not being an agreement, there will not be a free-for-all and fishing up to the beaches, but it is a matter which others could dispute and which could be decided in the courts. In looking at the wording, I cannot say with certainty what is the exact legal position, but the Government's interpretation—and that of the previous Labour Government—is that it does not allow for fishing up to the beaches.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In view of the Minister's statement about the safeguards for the wine and alcohol industries, may I ask whether he is aware that the 18 May agreement was based on the distillation of 55,000 hectolitres of wine alcohol? Is he now saying that we are still distilling the 55,000 hectolitres, or that a greater quantity is being distilled? If that is the case, can he say how much more than 55,000 hectolitres is being distilled, because obviously that will distort the market, despite the non-disturbance clause?
What studies are taking place in the EEC on alternative uses of the wine lake—for example, for animal feedstock?

Mr. Walker: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am glad to be able to tell him that, at our request, the EEC has agreed to make studies.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, obviously the total volume will vary, depending on the size of the crop, but the non-disturbance agreement for all the wine going into intervention totally applies and I am glad to say that it is part of the regulation.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Has the Minister made it perfectly clear during negotiations that, come what may, Britain will in no circumstances allow fishing up to the beaches?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Sir Walter Clegg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest Danish delay could be fatal for the port of Fleetwood? Is he further aware that two middle water fleet trawlers have already tied up? A meeting is to be held this afternoon, as a result of which the rest may be tied up. It may well be that 38 lumpers will be laid off. Is there not a case now for financial help for the British fishing industry, pending a final solution?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, the specific problems of Fleetwood result from a range of difficulties, not all connected with the negotiations. Meetings took place yesterday with my right hon. Friend and further meetings will take place early next week.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the action of Denmark lead the Minister to conclude that there is now a real prospect that no agreement will be reached before the end of the year? In those circumstances, will he give the House an undertaking that by no later than October he will come forward with his plans to ensure that our industry can develop, expand and succeed after 1 January 1983?

Mr. Walker: I still believe that there is a very good prospect of an agreement during the period of the Danish Presidency. Having been present at past meetings, as has the hon. Gentleman, I have witnessed the sorts of pressures now being put on the Danish position and upon the Danish Government. It is very unlikely that the Danish Presidency will proceed during the coming six months on the basis of refusing to come to a sane and sensible agreement on fishing. If I am proved to be wrong, we shall have to be prepared to come forward at an appropriate time—which will have to be judged in the circumstances of the dates of meetings and so on—and make clear what action we shall take.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: My right hon. Friend's statement will be greeted with dismay and disappointment by all British fishermen, and particularly those in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the pelagic fleet fishing has already been delayed.
Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will be active policing to ensure that the Danes do not overfish in the North Sea during the two months before the next meeting? If they do, they will be taking advantage of the British fishermen who are endeavouring to carry out proper fishing.

Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that one of the things agreed yesterday was a roll-over of the various conservation measures. I assure my hon. Friend that, in those waters in which we are responsible for surveillance, proper surveillance will take place.

Mr. John Home Robertson: As there will be only 72 fishing days between the date set for the next Fisheries Council meeting and the deadline on 1 January next year, and as the House is rising next week for the recess, will the Minister take this opportunity to tell the House of his contingency plans for protecting British fishing interests at the beginning of next year?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir, because I do not negotiate on the basis of announcing what I shall do if I do not succeed.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, East): Is it not ironic that apparently it is the Danes who are holding up the settlement, bearing in mind that it was their ruthless industrial fishing methods that caused great problems in the fishing industry generally?
As there was the possibility of reaching a settlement on an earlier occasion, when France was causing the difficulty, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there are any aspects of that near agreement which the Danes were then accepting but are not accepting now?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. There has been no basic change in the position. One of Denmark's problems is that it has a minority Government, but it also has the responsibilities of the Presidency of the European Community. One matter that emerged clearly from the meeting was that the rest of Europe expects Denmark to conduct its Presidency in the interests of Europe.

Mr. Robert Hughes: For how long will the Minister retain his innocent belief that there is good-will in the Community to reach a fisheries settlement that is satisfactory to British fishermen, as there is always one obstructive fishing nation in the EEC? He said that his position on ratification of the agreement by the House of Commons was the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). Can he remind me of that position?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Member for Deptford said that if one reaches an agreement that is satisfactory to the industry one must accept it and then justify that action to the House of Commons. That is what he told the House. It is obviously difficult to reach agreement when each nation wishes to have the maximum amount of fish and the best access arrangements. There is a strong desire to reach agreement among nine countries and I hope that, before the end of the year, that desire will extend to the Ten.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is not the lesson of the latest Council meeting that our vital national fishing interests would have been better protected if the Minister had asked for majority voting on the issue earlier? Secondly, as the Danes are in the Presidency and that option will no longer be open, is there not also a risk that the right hon. Gentleman's earlier settlement of agricultural price fixing, which he deliberately linked to the budget, will be used to link the budget to a fisheries settlement? Can he assure us that there will be no such linkage?

Mr. Walker: I have had the delightful task of negotiating in Europe for the past three years and I believe

that there would be nothing more disastrous for the United Kingdom than to have majority voting. I should not join any process of majority voting, although no doubt on some occasions it would be to our advantage. As to the linkage between the budget and other matters, the proposals now advanced by the Commission on quotas will mean a better position than at any time in the Community's history, including the time when the leader of the Social Democratic Party was President of the Commission.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As my right hon. Friend the Minister has greatly reassured me, and possibly others, with his clear statement to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that the Government will not permit fishing up to the beaches at the end of the year in the absence of an agreement, does he agree that it would be much more satisfactory, instead of seeking a hasty and unsatisfactory deal, to work to a deal that would be acceptable to all fishing organisations, including the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations?

Mr. Walker: I shall try to reach an agreement that has the support of all the fishing organisations. At a recent meeting with the NFFO president there was no disagreement about our negotiating position. I asked this organisation's leaders whether, if we reached a settlement that was agreed by the fishing organisations that were responsible for 80 per cent. of the catch, they would wish to veto the entire agreement. They replied that they would not.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: There will now be another two months' delay before arrangements are made. Is the Minister now beginning seriously to consider giving financial aid to the industry, such as operating subsidies, because bankruptcy is facing both large and small firms?

Mr. Walker: We are considering details that have been sent to us, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most hon. Members, the fishing industry has diverse interests. A substantial section of the fleet has had much higher catches and prices during the past six months. Other sections of the industry are now in difficulty. We are considering carefully the detailed picture that is being presented to us.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend has not said anything about the reestablishment of the British veto. As this is fundamental to the Agriculture Council, can my right hon. Friend say what discussions there were about the restoration of the British veto and when he expects to see it restored? If he has any doubt about its restoration, what discussions has he had with his colleagues as to the action that should be taken by the Government?

Mr. Walker: Community procedures are a matter for the Foreign Affairs Council and they have been discussed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister mentioned the political pressures on Denmark, which he said had a minority Government. Will he add proportional representation to those problems?

Mr. Walker: It is not for me to analyse why the Labour Government in Denmark is a minority one.

Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members feared that he


might have been tempted into a trade-off with the French and the Italians about the distillation of wine and that we are grateful to him and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for not having been so tempted? Will he acknowledge that, in reaching the decision, he was helped by advice from Members of all parties?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The fact that the final wording of the agreement is highly satisfactory is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who spent four and a half hours negotiating the wording and who eventually achieved what he required.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Although the Minister's comments on industrial alcohol could have been worse, does he agree that the larger problem of the enormous over-production of wine in the Community, which leads to the astonishing and increasing export of large volumes of wine to third countries at prices such as 4p and 5p a litre, should command even more attention than he has devoted to the problem so far?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I did not go into detail about all the wine regulations that I mentioned in my statement. However, I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in the topic and he will find important structural proposals in the package, which I hope will reduce surplus wine production.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that the Minister has taken on board the genuine, sombre concern that is felt on both sides of the House about the time factor. As we understand the position from his statement and from answers, there was agreement by everyone except Denmark. Does that mean that he is in total agreement about the limits laid down in the Commission documents?
Secondly, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about confirming with the House the September agreement, if it should be reached then, because we are not talking about a normal agreement? The Minister referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). We are now talking about the next 10 and probably 20 years of fishing policy, and the Minister must obtain agreement from the House before he concludes that.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the latter point. The right hon. Member for Deptford was also questioned about total agreement on the common fisheries policy. He reasonably and rightly said "If in the middle of the night I have the opportunity … " I agree with that view.
I made it clear in my statement that nine countries agreed that we cannot meaningfully discuss quotas, access and total allowable catches until we know the additional available catches from the Norwegian joint stocks. The opportunity to discuss and make changes in those areas did not occur at the meeting, because we agreed that until the details of the additional stocks were available we could not discuss quotas.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister answered a question that I did not ask. I asked him specifically about the six-mile or 12-mile limits. Does he agree with the Commission document on those limits?

Mr. Walker: Those matters are still under negotiation and the position is changing continually. I have agreed no proposals for access with another country or with the Commission.

St. David's Hospital, Dyfed

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on St. David's hospital, Carmarthen, and mental illness services in Dyfed.
A series of reports since 1974 has drawn attention to the poor quality of mental illness services at St. David's hospital and elsewhere in Dyfed. These include two unpublished reports by the National Health Service health advisory service in 1974 and 1977.
In the course of the regular contacts by my officials, it became increasingly clear that the necessary remedial action was still not being taken by the authority. In September 1981, the General Nursing Council decided to withdraw approval from St. David's hospital as a statutory nurse training school. In November 1981, arrangements were put in hand for a formal visit by professional staff of my Department.
The visit took place in January of this year, and, as a result, a team from the NHS health advisory service was invited to conduct a special review of the shortcomings and deficiencies of the service. The team's report has just been presented to me and made available to the health authorities in Dyfed and the county council. I have discussed the report with the chairman of the East Dyfed health authority. The authority will consider it at a special meeting next week. In view of its nature, I thought it right immediately to make it available to Parliament, and copies have been placed in the Library.
The report confirms the sharply critical nature of so many earlier comments about St. David's hospital and states that no real progress has been made in remedying the very serious deficiencies that are revealed. It speaks of
a marked absence of discernible, credible leadership
at the hospital, states that
no one seems to be responsible and accountable
and concludes that
the management structure has not proved equal to its task and has failed at all levels".
There is criticism of the approach and attitude of some of the doctors and staff and of unsatisfactory relationships between staff. The health authority is criticised for failing to set proper standards of performance and failing to control and monitor those who should be responsible for supervision. The report is strongly critical of the relationship between the health authority and the social services department.
As a consequence of these failings by management, standards of nursing in some wards are described as deplorable. Some wards are said to be filthy and, in the opinion of the team, little regard is paid to privacy and the preservation of human dignity. Standards of hygiene are poor.
Conditions due to overcrowding in some long-stay wards are described as intolerable. The report makes depressing reading, but I should make it clear to the House that there is no suggestion in the report that there has been any wilful mistreatment or cruelty to patients.
The report refers to the relative underfunding of Dyfed health authority and states that the underfunding of psychiatric services is a major factor causing many of the problems. The report is also citical of the present system of joint financing in Wales.
A detailed prescription for action can be prepared only after the health and social services authorities have considered the report, but I intend to see that two of the main recommendations of the report are carried out without delay. The first is that there should be an immediate exercise involving outside expertise to improve management structures and attitudes in the mental illness services in Dyfed.
Secondly, I am establishing a review group for a limited period to ensure that the performace of the organisation makes progress towards agreed objectives and the main recommendations of the report. This review group will be appointed by me. It will be chaired by one of my officials, and it will report direct to me. It will include independent senior professional staff from outside Dyfed.
As to Dyfed health authority's underfunding, I have continued the efforts, begun in 1975 by the previous Government, to tackle this longstanding problem. In all, since 1975, in addition to its share of general growth, Dyfed has received extra growth resources of over £3·2 million, of which the present Government have provided over £2 million. Between 1974 and 1982, no other health authority in Wales has received so large a percentage share of growth.
However, I have to say that the health authority has within its discretionary resources accorded very low priority to mental illness services, despite increasing pressure from my Department to give it higher priority and to remedy the acknowledged deficiencies.
There have been capital developments. I have approved central funding projects worth over £5 million in total to improve accommodation and relieve overcrowding at St. David's hospital and to improve facilities for the mentally ill in Dyfed.
Regarding joint finance, as part of the "Care in the Community" consultation exercise, the Government have been carefully considering the case for liberalising the present arrangements, and we hope to make a statement before the House rises for the recess.
As to the immediate future, the Welsh Office will pay the costs of the review group and the management exercise I have described. I shall also be urgently reviewing the financial requirements of the East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire health authorities in the context of the needs of the Health Service in Wales as a whole to ensure that the authorities give at least the same priority to the development of mental illness services as most of the other health authorities have done for some considerable time past.
I shall be considering further action necessary in the light of this report, and I shall, of course, keep Parliament fully informed.

Mr. Alec Jones: It is right and proper that the Secretary of State should have come to the House to make the statement and to publish the report. It is important that all those involved in St. David's and everyone responsible for the care of mentally ill patients in Dyfed should be aware of the totally unsatisfactory conditions that prevailed at St. David's, as the report clearly shows. Does the Secretary of State agree that the report confirms previous reports and reviews carried out by professional bodies and justifies the criticisms made by the responsible trade unions, NUPE and COHSE, in the report that they submitted to the Secretary of State earlier this year?
This depressing report draws attention to the most disgraceful conditions in St. David's hospital. In its reference to overcrowding, the report describes intolerable conditions in some long-stay wards, especially for elderly people. It talks of poor facilities and filthy wards, showing little regard for the preservation of human dignity. It also talks of staff shortages, which mean that some nurses work 14½-hour shifts. The underfunding still persists, despite the efforts of successive Governments.
I am pleased to join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that there was no evidence of wilful mistreatment or cruelty to patients. Does he agree, however, that overcrowding, staff shortages and lack of facilities are not evidence of the best treatment to which people are entitled?
Above all, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the report is mainly highly critical of management, of the health authorities and of the extremely poor liaison that existed between the health authorities and the social services.
The report says that there is
a marked absence of discernible, credible leadership".
Does that not show that a fresh look needs to be taken not only at managerial structures but at certain managerial personnel? I am not suggesting a witch hunt. However, I do not believe that such a report can be produced and that no one can be responsible for what it reveals.
I accept the action that has been taken on underfunding. Is the Secretary of State prepared to take some urgent steps to correct what is still obvious underfunding by the East Dyfed area health authority?
I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to bring in outside expertise and to establish the review group. Does he agree that a top priority must be to recreate conditions that would allow the General Nursing Council again to approve St. David's as a statutory training school?
The Opposition will support the Secretary of State in any action that he proposes to take to put right the appalling wrongs in St. David's. I recall previous inquiries into mental hospitals in Wales. The late Dick Crossman, following the Ely report, said that there was a need for "eyes and ears" within the system. This report shows the need for brighter eyes and keener ears within hospitals in Wales. We wish the right hon. Gentleman to take action immediately to correct the defects and to ensure that this does not happen again.

Mr. Edwards: I agree with practically everything that the right hon. Gentleman said, especially his remarks about conditions. It is because I share his views that I thought it right to publish the document immediately. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about its publication. The document repeats almost verbatim, in large part, similar criticisms made in the 1977 report that was not published. There is a clear advantage in publishing reports of this kind. It is one way of obtaining action.
The NUPE and COHSE report was one of a large number of reports by different organisations which said the same thing. That report was published just after the visit by my senior officials, to which I referred, who reported in ever more critical terms to me. Therefore, it was one of a number of reports.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the whole matter being "depressing" and "disgraceful", and I do not disagree. He referred to the examples of filth and the little regard for human dignity. We should not disguise these

matters. However, the reporting team thought it right not to list particular examples, because that might put the blame on those responsible for specific examples when others might be equally responsible for examples not selected. I was told about wards where the smell of urine was intolerable, where urine-soaked pillows were dried on radiators and where naked female patients were sitting on commodes while there were male visitors in the ward. That kind of thing is intolerable.
The right hon. Gentleman will know, because he was a Minister in the Labour Government, that successive Governments have begun the process of correcting the relative underfunding of this authority. Dyfed received an increase in funding between 1974 and 1982 of 28·7 per cent., compared with 24·1 per cent. for Wales, but during much the same period allocated an increase of only just over 6 per cent. on the mental illness services. Although central Government have the problem of allocation, there is also a clear responsibility on the health authority.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to management. He is right in saying that the central theme of the report is the complete lack of an effective management structure and control. Clearly, the health authority, which is the operational authority, must take a major share of responsibility for that.
I asked the chairman of the authority, with whom I discussed the report this morning, how he would react to this, and, reasonably, he fell that his authority—it received the report only this morning—should have an opportunity to consider its response. It would be right to hear its response before coming to any further conclusions on the matter.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Are the faults revealed in the report, faults of the system and of the structure rather than of any individuals, including those in the authority? It would be helpful to know, so that we can draw inferences. Do the problems that have been revealed in the allocation of resources for psychiatric hospitals have general implications for Wales as a whole?

Mr. Edwards: With regard to responsibility, many faults are shown in the report. The team is right to say that an inquiry in the form of a witch hunt of individuals would probably not produce satisfactory results. The report clearly identifies a lack of adequate management structure. In any organisation there must be clear personal responsibility. At the end of the day, personal responsibility over the operational side lies with the health authority, just as overall responsibility for the allocation of resources and general maintenance of standards in Wales rests with me. I accept my responsibility for the distribution of resources.
We have made it a major priority to allocate additional resources to the Dyfed authority and we have continued and accelerated the process begun by our predecessors. I have undertaken to have another look at the matter, although I must not allocate resources in such a way as to penalise authorities that have given a high priority to mental health services. In other words, it would be wrong to penalise authorities which, over many years, have given mental health services a high priority, so as to rescue the Dyfed authority from the lack of priority that it gave to this matter.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Can the Secretary of State explain the extraordinary fact that, although a report was


prepared in 1974 expressing concern about conditions in the hospital, the General Nursing Council did not withdraw approval of the hospital as a statutory training centre until the latter part of last year? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that administrative clinical questions, such as this and other similar matters in the Health Service, should be left exclusively to the professional body involved?

Mr. Edwards: The professional body involved has a clear responsibility in this matter, and it must take its own decisions. The authority made certain appointments and hoped that those appointments would lead to an improvement. Clearly, they did not. However, it would have been better, and we should have got on better, if the early reports had been published. We could then have measured progress. It is for that reason that I have chosen to publish the report today.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome the fact the Secretary of State has come to the House to make the statement. Does he accept that one of the most trenchant, but easier to remedy criticisms in the report is in the words:
There is a failure to do simple things well.
When does the buck stop? Who will shoulder the responsibility at the hospital? Does the right hon. Gentleman know how painfully slow the negotiations were to set up a hospital check list, particularly at hospitals for the mentally handicapped? Why was that list not extended to the mental hospitals, and is it working well?
Would it not be better for somebody other than an official in the Minister's Department to chair the review—somebody who has knowledge and understanding of the inherent difficulties of hospital services?

Mr. Edwards: I shall consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. I agree that in any organisation, there must be an acceptance of responsibility. However, as the report has not yet been seen by the authority and the chairman received the final report only today, I think that I should allow the authority time to discuss it before coming to any conclusions. The authority should decide, in the light of what is said and of its own discussions, who, if anyone, should accept responsibility.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the three hon. Members who have risen.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision to publish the report is warmly welcomed? Will he tell the House that he intends to publish all health advisory reports of this kind? Does he accept that had the reports produced under previous Administrations been published, action could have been taken earlier? Does he further accept that what he has now published shows that the criticisms of the hospital made by MIND and other mental health organisations in Wales over the years have been justified?
Many of us who have been concerned about the quality of service for the mentally ill in Wales find it unacceptable that heads should roll for other matters that affect national security, but that they have not yet rolled for the matters that affect the privacy and dignity of human beings who are mentally ill. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we shall not be satisfied until those who are responsible

for tolerating this state of affairs and allowing the incidents referred to in the report to take place have been removed from public office?

Mr. Edwards: Some reports are not commissioned by my Department, and there may be circumstances in which it is not possible to publish a particular report. This report was commissioned by the chairman of the authority and the authority after discussions with my officials. My inclination is to publish reports whenever possible. If there are certain matters that people feel they cannot adequately examine in an open way when they know that a report is to be published, we shall have to consider their representations. However, I agree that reports should be published.
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the criticisms that have generally been made have been justified except, notably, for those published in the Daily Mirror some time ago. That newspaper made accusations of attacks on individuals. There is no suggestion in the report of ill-treatment as such.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State accept some responsibility for the underfunding of this hospital? Will he say when he first became aware of the deplorable conditions there? Did he contact the health authority so that he might go to the hospital and see for himself the conditions there? When did he last visit a mental hospital in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman first asked me about underfunding. I have given this a high priority and have allocated an average of about £625,000 a year of additonal growth money on top of the general growth money to Dyfed, which is more than my predecessors were able to find, seeking to do the same task. We have also agreed a number of major capital developments—more than £5 million worth—and I have agreed this week the contract for new developments which will reduce overcrowding. Those are developments at Bryntirion hospital at Llanelli, which will reduce overcrowding here. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), who has day-to-day responsibility for health affairs in Wales, has visited the hospital. It has also been visited regularly by my officials.

Mr. William Pitt: I am sure that the Minister will agree—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), who is engaged on duties elsewhere, will agree—that this is an appalling and horrifying story of intolerable conditions being suffered by people who are unable to look after themselves. Is not it clear that there are only two possible solutions to the problem? The first is to make funds available now so that the hospital can again become a humane and efficient establishment. The alternative, if the funds are not available and are unlikely to be available in the very near future, is to consider closing the establishment so that the patients may be relocated in more humane and more efficient establishments elsewhere.

Mr. Edwards: Before the patients can be put elsewhere, obviously we have to try to provide the new facilites. That, of course, means the co-operation of the Dyfed social services department. It is the policy of my Department to try to move patients out of these large, old-fashioned hospitals into smaller units in the communities,


and, in the world of mental handicap as opposed to mental illness, I have just launched a major new initiative to do this. I hope to make a statement about it in the very near future.

Radioactive Waste

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about radioactive waste management. The Government are today publishing a White Paper, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
The sixth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution made a number of recommendations for the management of radioactive wastes. The previous Government published a White Paper, Cmnd 6820, on their response to the sixth report. This White Paper reports on the present position and sets out the Government's priorities for further action.
The Government attach the highest importance to the safe management of radioactive wastes. As a result of research undertaken in this and other countries over the past five years, the Government are satisfied that all the wastes currently envisaged can be managed and disposed of in acceptable ways. The main task is to identify the most appropriate method for each category of waste, and then to ensure its efficient implementation. In this we shall continue to be advised by the independent radioactive waste management advisory committee, which was set up by the previous Government following the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The Royal Commission also identified the need for an executive organisation to develop and manage radioactive waste disposal facilities and to accept solid waste from those who created it. The Government have now reached agreement with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and the generating boards that they will set up forthwith such an executive to be called the nuclear industry radioactive waste executive. In the first instance, the executive will take responsibility for intermediate-level wastes. It will also take over responsibility, as from next year, for the sea-disposal operations for low-level waste. It will have a staff at Harwell, provided by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on a repayment basis, and will be supervised by a directorate made up of senior representatives of the component bodies. The costs of disposal operations, which are expected to be roughly £65 million over the next 10 years, will be met by the producers of the waste. The Government believe that this executive is the most suitable form of organisation for these present tasks. Its establishment in no way affects the clear responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. They are responsible for the overall strategy on waste management. In addition, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the nuclear installations inspectorate, they retain the regulatory powers to ensure that the executive maintains the necessary high standards. The new executive will make periodic reports to the Secretaries of State. These reports will be published.
Radioactive wastes vary very widely in radioactivity and toxicity. For the small quantities of high level heat-generating liquid waste, work is going ahead on vitrification plant. The solid blocks thus produced wall then be stored for a period likely to be at least 50 years, until the radioactivity and heat generation have declined


substantially. Meanwhile, further research will be undertaken to help identify the most suitable of the available methods for longer-term management.
For intermediate level waste, there is a need for the early development of land disposal facilities employing existing technology. This will be the first main task of the new executive.
For low level wastes, satisfactory methods of disposal are already in use, and the advisory committee has confirmed that these should continue to be used, subject to the continuing monitoring of appropriate controls. In the case of liquid discharges from the Sellafield works of BNFL, which have been reduced substantially in recent years, a new and more stringent authorisation will be issued after the treatment plant now under construction comes into operation.
I should like to make two further points. The first is that the cost of waste management measures must be met by the industry and be reflected in its accounting practices. The industry has confirmed to me that it fully accepts this.
The second is the need to secure public confidence in the management of both existing radioactive wastes and those that will arise.
As this White Paper confirms, the Government attach great importance to keeping the public properly informed and will seek to ensure that this is done at all stages.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister will appreciate the great length of time that has been taken, not only by his Government but also by the Labour Government, to deal with this matter and to respond adequately to the report of the Royal Commission in 1976. I am not complaining overmuch about that, although it will be a matter of some public concern that, six years on, we now have a White Paper that takes up the recommendation of the Royal Commission for the establishment of the proposed executive and that in the interim we are to have the assistance of the radioactive waste management committee.
I welcome the Minister's statement. It is extremely important as he says, to carry public opinion with him and to allay the considerable public concern on a matter of critical importance to many people.
The Minister will not expect me, I hope, to give a detailed response to a White Paper of some 70 paragraphs, which is extremely technical, which needs to be studied carefully and upon which the Opposition need advice. However, the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that the first action that I must ask him to take is to provide time in the House as soon as possible so that we may debate the White Paper after opinion has been expressed to us and we have had an opportunity to consult over a wide area. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to provide that opportunity early in the new Session.
One immediate question arises about the new executive. It is not proposed that the executive will include an independent element to represent the public interest. The Opposition doubt whether it is wise to exclude an independent element when dealing with the critically important matter of the disposal of nuclear waste.
The executive will report to the directorate, but that too will be composed of representatives of the component bodies. They have a direct interest in the matter. The

executive will report to the various Secretaries of State responsible for the overall strategy, who also have a direct interest. The Opposition think that it is absolutely vital—with great respect to the waste management committee—that the new executive should contain an independent element that will have the confidence of the country. I shall press for that.
I have one or two detailed questions. What will the new executive's relationship be to the other statutory bodies that already deal with such matters, particularly to the nuclear installations inspectorate—in which the public has confidence—and to the national radiological institute? Will their responsibilities be maintained, and if so how? Will new legislation be required to relate the new executive to those existing statutory bodies?
I hope that the Minister does not mind my saying that many of the questions about land disposal facilities that need to be answered have not been answered in the White Paper. I accept that that is inevitable to a certain degree, but one is led to the conclusion that the Government could have been more forthcoming had they known the answers. Even today, after so many years, the Government probably still do not know the answers to many of the vital questions about nuclear waste disposal. That is no doubt why the White Paper is silent on that matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Because the questions have not been asked, that is why.

Mr. Howell: I do not want to interrupt my remarks to deal with my hon. Friend's intervention. As usual, he is on the ball. With this Government the Opposition must ask the necessary questions. [Interruption.] How nice it is to carry the House with me when we are approaching the Summer Recess. There are some vital questions to be asked about drilling and planning requirements. Some extraordinary things have been happening. Paragraph 41 of the White Paper talks about Drigg. What is the capacity of that disposal area and for how much longer will it be available? What sort of time scale are we talking about for Drigg and its successors?
The White Paper says nothing about the extraordinary position that arose over Loch Doon and following the public inquiry. What has happened as a result of that planning inquiry? It seems to have disappeared without trace. It is important to Scotland, and it is not mentioned in the White Paper. We must have the answer to that question.
Dr. Stanley Bowie, the independent geological consultant, resigned from the radioactive waste management advisory committee because the Government abandoned further research into the drilling programme. In its third annual report 1982 the committee says:
This decision must inevitably put off the day when a definite decision can be taken about the specific and permanent solution for the management of high level waste in the UK.
What is the Minister's response to those criticisms by the radioactive waste management advisory committee?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman making a speech or is he asking questions? He has now taken about 10 minutes to put his question.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that that point of order is a little untimely. The right hon. Gentleman is about to conclude.

Mr. Howell: I had intended to conclude then, but this is a matter of the greatest importance to many people and therefore these questions have to be answered. I hope that the Minister can do so.

Mr. King: The Government thought it right to make a statement to coincide with the publication of the White Paper. I understand the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the House will wish to study it. My right hon. Friend the Lord President will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's remark, about time for a debate and with his customary generosity he will no doubt be anxious to see whether it is possible, either in Opposition time or in our own, to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman. I see the agonised look on my right hon. Friend's face.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the executive should contain independent members. He misunderstands the purpose of that organisation. The executive is meant to carry out work. It will have to submit any proposals it makes to the radioactive waste management advisory committee, the majority of whose members are independent of the nuclear industry. That is the whole point. We do not want to muddle up executive action with independent assessment. As I made clear in my statement, my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State, retain full responsibilities, and the nuclear installations inspectorate, and the national radiological protection board remain fully operative. That is set out in paragraph 26 of the White Paper. Further information about that will be published tomorrow.
The Loch Doon appeals were rejected. It was announced that it was not proposed to continue with that programme of exploratory drilling. As I made clear in my statement, the priorities that we attached to that had changed because of the advice we received, that there was likely to be a period of surface storage of at least 50 years for high level wastes.
In respect of Dr. Bowie's resignation, it is true that there were differences of opinion about research priorities on high level wastes. That is confirmed in the advisory committee's third report. In every other respect, however, we are following the advisory committee's advice. Dr. Bowie resigned because of personal matters also, which I do not think that it would be proper for me to discuss.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that questions are being asked on the statement. I shall allow questions to continue for 20 minutes, as is usual with a major statement, although that will take time from the other debate.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to cancel planning inquiries, or disallow applications after inquiries have taken place, such as the one concerning drilling at Wymeswold, has left the objectors feeling that they spent a great deal of money for nothing when the Government change their mind in the middle of the game? Will my right hon. Friend now change his mind and agree to make an ex gratia payment of £49 in compensation to my constituent, Mr. E. J. Darby, of Loughborough friends of the earth, for his expenses connected with that inquiry?

Mr. King: I do not think that I can add anything to the reply that I have already given my hon. Friend. I know that he wishes to pursue his constituent's case. I look forward to our meeting this evening.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister claims that waste can be managed and disposed of, and yet says that such methods have not yet been identified. Is it true that there is no safe method for disposal of radioactive waste? A waste management executive composed as he has suggested will be unsatisfactory. An independent element should be included as well as maintaining the management advisory board. Will he confirm that there is no vitrification process for high level waste available in this country and although that is being developed in France it is not yet entirely satisfactory? There is no long term solution to the safe transport of this very dangerous material.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will have read the third report of the advisory committee, which confirms that it is satisfied that the vitrification process is satisfactory. We are pursuing a French process. The hon. Gentleman will know that last week Copeland district council gave planning permission for the construction of the vitrification plant at Windscale. We are satisfied that that is the right way to proceed. The hon. Gentleman should read the reply that I gave concerning an independent member on the executive. On the face of it, it is an attractive solution, but it muddles the two roles. It is certainly important that the control and assessment of any proposals from the executive should be independent. However, that is quite another matter.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no absolutely safe way of handling nuclear waste. Just as the Labour Government accepted, so we accept that it is important to ensure the proper and responsible management of the nuclear waste in existence. Indeed, hon. Members should remember that a considerable amount of nuclear waste is already in tanks in Windscale. If the hon. Gentleman attended questions to the Department of the Environment yesterday, he will know that no fuel source is totally free of risk. Yesterday we spoke about acid rain and the damage done by coal burn. To imply that nuclear fuel is particularly dangerous and that other fuels are free of hazard is greatly to mislead the House.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Although I welcome the idea of such an executive, I am confused about whether it is to have a high public profile to reassure those concerned both nationally and locally about what it is doing. Does the land disposal facility refer to land already zoned or is the executive to seek permission to use new land for disposal? In what principal form will the intermediate waste be? When will the executive take over responsibility for the high level liquid waste? Will the solid blocks be retrievable after they have been lodged?

Mr. King: At this stage, the executive will not have responsibility for high level waste. That is the responsibility of BNFL. The plant is at BNFL and it will be responsible for the operation of the vitrification plant. As I said in my statement, the ultimate disposal route for the solid blocks is a matter for the future. It may prove sensible to store the waste for even longer than the period mentioned in the statement. The waste could then be monitored and inspected and its heat generation could be checked. In that way, the waste would not be so out of mind or sight as was, perhaps, possible under the previously favoured option.
Sites will be a matter for the executive. If it wishes to propose other sites for, for example, intermediate level


waste, it will have to make proposals that will then go through all the relevant procedures, such as planning permission and so on. That will be necessary if it wishes to use sites that do not have such permission at present. It is important to remember that there is a certain amount of nuclear waste already, which is located in various places. If new areas are to be used the executive will have to get permission.

Sir Albert Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this matter is of particular interest to me, since I have two nuclear power stations in my constituency? Although the statement involves the ultimate disposal of waste, I am sure that he will appreciate that disposal from the power plant is of special interest to me. Where will the new organisation take over? Will it be at the gate of the power station or somewhere else?

Mr. King: That will depend on the proposals made by the executive and the decisions made on them by the responsible authorities, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. At present, the CEGB covers my hon. Friend's power stations and BNFL transfers the spent fuel to Windscale. Any changes will be a matter for discussion and submission to the appropriate authorities.

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Minister accept that confidence in the operations of BFNL at Windscale is high in West Cumbria? As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, highly active material is stored there and it is also disposed of at Drigg in my constituency, where there is a sea outfall pipe. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the development of the nuclear industry cannot outstrip public acceptance of what is proposed? In view of the White Paper's publication, will he assure the community in West Cumbria that the views of the Windscale local liaison committee—on which the local authorities, trade unions and others are represented—will be given particularly careful consideration before any final decisions are taken?

Mr. King: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. I hope that he will recognise that the closing words of my statement are an acceptance of that point and that I have always expressed that view. I am well aware of the close interest taken in Cumberland, and particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is adjacent to Sellafield. I hope that the views of the liaison committee will be fully taken into account, as it is important to maintain its confidence and support.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the agency or executive take over responsibility for waste stored in tanks at generating stations, or will the executive collect waste in a central dump? If it the latter, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that waste from outside Scotland will not be dumped in Scotland? If the executive is to have cross-border powers, what Scottish representation will there be on the executive?

Mr. King: The executive will include a member of the South of Scotland Electricity Board. A chief engineer will be a member of the executive. The proposals cover England, Scotland and Wales and that is why my colleagues from the Scottish Office and Welsh Office are in the Chamber. It is up to the executive to put forward proposals about taking over waste.

Sir Hector Monro: Given my constituency interest and the fact that planning permission was refused for test boring sites in south-west Scotland, will my right hon. Friend confirm, with the move to vitrification, that there is no likelihood of burying nuclear waste in rock in the forseeable future?

Mr. King: That depends on how far my hon. Friend can foresee. However, I am sure that it is not likely to happen within our lifetime. It is a matter of debate whether the method will be acceptable in the distant future. However, there is no prospect of it being buried now.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister accept that many of us have great confidence in the technical capacity of this area of British industry? However, nearly a year ago I raised the delicate subject of Dr. Bowie with the right hon. Gentleman. While there are personal considerations that may be inappropriate to disclose, should not the disagreements between Dr. Bowie and the others on public issues be set out? Is there any cash tag on the money devoted to vitrification?

Mr. King: It is a matter for Dr. Bowie if he wishes to raise further issues. I had a long talk with him about some of the issues involved. I share some of the concern about the operation of the committee. However, I hope that the further discussions that have taken place have led to an improvement in that respect. I do not wish to go any further than that. It is up to others if they wish to rehearse arguments that are not as great as might have been assumed. The cash tag is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. In my statement I made it clear that the cost of dealing with waste is the responsibility of the industries involved.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the handling of public relations on the experimental drilling left much to be desired, since it created unnecessary anxieties, and not only in the East Midlands? Does he agree that that could have been avoided if it had been made clear earlier what my right hon. Friend is making clear today, and what we all know, that there is no intention in the foreseeable future of storing high radioactive waste, even if safely vitrified, unless it is shown to be safe beyond doubt?

Mr. King: It is fair to say that the previous Government acted on the best advice available. I do not criticise them for launching the exploratory drilling programme. We inherited that programme and it was based on the best scientific advice at the time. As soon as it was clear that scientific opinion had changed and it was decided that it was far better to deal with waste in its early years so that it can be monitored, that was acted upon. That was a more suitable method according to scientific opinion. We sought at the earliest opportunity to allay anxieties about the earlier programme.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Who took the decision to stop the drilling? It was unfair to the CEBG, which received a great deal of public criticism on that account. I endorse the need for independence, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek the views of the engineers and technical staff who have to do the work. My union, the Electrical Power Engineers Association, has a great deal of knowledge which is at the Minister's disposal.

Mr. King: One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in that union is a member of the radioactive waste


management advisory committee. The members of the executive include directors of fuel processing operations, and process technology, and engineers. The executive must submit its proposals to the independent body, to which hon. Members attach importance. The decision to change the programme involved priorities. Since such work is going ahead in other countries and since we indentified no need for such facilities for at least 50 years, it seemed pointless to continue the expenditure and research.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Which of the technologies to help with the disposal of waste come into the category of existing technologies? Do they include vitrification? What are the Government's standards in establishing what is an existing and proven technology?

Mr. King: Available methods cover post-vitrification and the most suitable placement and treatment of the blocks. The vitrification process is accepted and is recommended by the advisory committee. There is no great disagreement in the House on that part of the process. The argument emerges about the most suitable way to handle the blocks. A number of methods are set out in the report.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's sensible response to one of the more important recommendations of the Flowers report. Can he make available in some form the impact on the price of electricity of the arrangements, since the industry will have to carry the cost? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is enough expert scientific advice available in his Department to do the necessary monitoring of the safety aspect? Since public confidence is so vital, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of publishing a shorter version of his excellent White Paper in a more popular and simpler form for wider distribution?

Mr. King: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is difficult to put such complex matters into a simple and popular form. The electricity authorities already take the cost of treatment into account. I understand that no significant additional cost is involved. My hon. Friend will have studied the list of members of the radioactive waste management advisory committee, which comprises professors of environmental science, medicine, physics, chemical engineering, toxicology, economics, agriculture research and chemistry. That is an impressive collection of scientific opinion.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three hon. Members, if they are brief, before I call the Front Bench spokesmen.

Dr. M. S. Miller: May I warn the Minister that he will not find this plain sailing? Is he aware of the widespread public concern about this important and serious issue? What will happen before the vitrification process begins? It will be some time before that happens. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he is embarked on a once-for-all campaign to obtain public confidence? Does he accept that public confidence is dependent upon the scientists not adopting the arrogant attitude that they have in the past? Does he agree that the people need an explanation and will he keep the matter under review?

Does he agree that the issue should be put to the public continuously and that people cannot be expected to understand it for all time if it is explained just once?

Mr. King: I have never been under any illusion about there being any plain sailing. It is a difficult area, involving public enxiety. The hon. Gentleman asks what will be done with the waste before the vitrification process begins. The waste will be dealt with as it is now, and will be stored in tanks at Windscale. Some of it has been there for as long as 30 years. That will continue until we are able to start vitrification.
Commanding public acceptance is a problem. The campaign will be continuing. Acceptance depends upon the intelligence and responsibilities of Ministers and or the continuing determination and vigilance of all concerned in the industry. Any problem is a major setback to public confidence. I have always made it clear to the scientists, who the hon. Gentleman says were arrogant in the past, that two obstacles stand in the way of the development of nuclear power—the technical problems and public acceptability, which is just as important. We all have a role to play.

Mr. Jim Mat-shall: Was not the Minister in danger of misleading the House in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)? He implied that there was no difference between the byproducts of the nuclear industry and those of other energy-creating industries. Does the Minister accept that radioactive waste is the only by-product that has genetic effects on the present generation and therefore future generations? Is there not a need for an independent element on the executive to allay valid public fears?

Mr. King: I have tried to answer the hon. Gentleman's second question a number of times. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study again the White Paper and my original statement so that he understands the proposal. I do not seek to mislead the House, but no one can guarantee that any process is absolutely safe. There are problems in each energy-producing industry. They have different characteristics but coal-burning, for instance, creates substantial health disadvantages and problems. Hazards are involved in the production of natural gas, liquid petroleum gas and other forms of energy. We must be as vigilant as we can in each industry.

Mr. Frank Hooley: As it was the Royal Commission on environmental pollution that originally drew attention to the appallingly complacent record of the nuclear industry on the disposal of waste, will the Royal Commission have a continuing role in this sphere? Moreover, since alternative processes to vitrification have been developed in other parts of the world, will it be within the remit of the new executive to consider alternatives?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Royal Commission has dealt with a number of subjects most effectively in a series of reports. It will be a matter of independent judgment by the Royal Commission whether it chooses to return to nuclear power. The Royal Commission is reviewing, for its next report, the general state of the environment and environmental pollution, and I have no doubt it will touch on certain aspects of nuclear power. Hon. Members will recognise its contribution in raising concern over a number of issues. It is our


responsibility to ensure that its recommendations are carried through. It will be in the executive's interest to keep in close touch with developments in other parts of the world.

Mr. Bruce Milian: As regards high level waste and the Government's decision to discontinue the drilling programme, is it not the case that that decision had nothing to do with the change in scientific opinion? The radioactive waste management advisory committee said in its third annual report that it regrets the Government's decision. Is it not a fact that that decision was taken to get the Secretary of State for Scotland out of an embarrassing situation? The reporter at the Loch Doon inquiry had recommended that the drilling should go ahead, but the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) had publicly opposed such drilling for constituency reasons before he became Secretary of State for Scotland. That is the real reason for the decision.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman can live with his own illusions, but a study of the facts shows that the scientific evidence, and the advisory committee, drew attention to the options of longer-term storage on the surface. The committee took the view that, in spite of making that recommendation, it was still reasonable for the research programme to go forward. The Government decided on an alternative priority, but the scientific advice was clear on the option of longer-term storage on the surface. I should have thought that the majority of hon. Members would support that view.

Hon. Member for Islington, Central

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) sent me a letter concerning the incident yesterday and his inability to be with us today. I propose to accept his letter and to remind the House that where there is a conscious determination to walk out when I am speaking I shall have no hesitation in naming the hon. Member.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[28TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Royal Air Force

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): In last year's RAF debate I said that my closing remarks were in many ways a valedictory address to the service of which I had been the political head for something over two years. As a defence procurement Minister I have maintained my interest in, and contacts with, the Royal Air Force. It is, therefore, a particular pleasure to open this debate on the RAF which in the past year has again seen much achievement and change. However, I feel sure that hon. Members will understand if I address the majority of remarks to equipment and only touch fleetingly on personnel, which I leave to be covered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the conclussion of the debate.
The statement on defence Estimates dealing with our conventional forces states clearly that we currently are in the midst of the most comprehensive re-equipment programme for the Royal Air Force ever undertaken for some 30 years. I wish to itemise some of these programmes and deal with them in a litle more detail.
In the White Paper entitled "The United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward" we stated the critical importance of defence of the home base and the vital role to be played by our air defence forces. The substantial programme of improvements that we are undertaking is well advanced and will continue, greatly enhancing our air defence capability. These improvements include: the introduction of the Tornado F2 interceptor, 70 of which are currently on order, in about three years time; the retention of two Phantom squadrons, which had previously been planned to retire as Tornado F2 came in, to provide a substantial increase in the number of air defence fighters; the introduction of the Nimrod AEW aircraft, for which we are now actively considering an in-flight refuelling capability; the introduction of the Sidewinder AIM 9L short-range air-to-air missiles, which proved so effective in the South Atlantic, and will contribute towards the more than doubling of our holdings of modern air-to-air missiles; the arming of 72 Hawk aircraft with Sidewinder for the local air defence role, for which manufacture of modification kits is under way; the increase of the Royal Air Force's air-to-air refuelling capability with the introduction of VCIO tankers; the redeployment of a second Bloodhound area air defence surface-to-air missile squadron from Germany, which will be completed by the end of next year; and the fitting of Blindfire radar to Rapier fire units, which is now well on the way to completion.
This programme is complemeted by a major modernisation of the United Kingdom air defence ground


environment, including the provision of transportable three-dimensional radars and an integral high-speed data processing and communications system which will greatly assist the management of our air defence assets.
I should like now to deal with certain elements of this large and diverse programme. The United Kingdom's airborne early warning capability is currently provided by the ageing Shackleton aircraft. I think there is no need for me to dwell on this important element in our air defence given recent experience in the South Atlantic. With the advent of the Nimrod mark 3, our capability in this field will be transformed. The Nimrod mark 3 airborne early warning programme is proceeding to plan and a total of 11 aircraft will eventually be based at RAF Waddington near Lincoln. The Nimrods will be the United Kingdom's contribution to the NATO airborne early warning mixed force and will be interoperable with the Boeing E3A AWACS aircraft that will make the balance of the force. A ceremony principally to mark the formal activation of the E3A component was held in the Federal Republic of Germany of 28 June and was attended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. A Nimrod AEW development aircraft participated in the event and it is planned to hold a similar ceremony in the United Kingdom when the Nimrod component is formally activated.
In military jargon, air-to-air refuelling has the effect of a force multiplier—it prolongs the patrol time and the range of our air forces. The effectiveness of our Victor tanker force which, with the Hercules, were the workhorses of the air operation, was demonstrated admirably during operations in the South Atlantic. The longstanding plans to introduce a VC10 squadron in the tanker role are now coming to fruition. The first of nine converted aircraft had its maiden flight at Filton a few weeks ago. We now plan to devote increased resources to in-flight refuelling and we shall be considering the possibiltity of converting additional VC1Os to replace the Victors as they approach the end of their useful life. As my right hon. Friend announced on 1 July, as an interim measure we are converting six Vulcans and four Hercules to the tanker role.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend referred to the conversion of the Vulcans. Has he any plans for basing those Vulcans at Waddington?

Mr. Pattie: There are no plans to change the basing mode of the Vulcans at present.
Turning now to the RAF's maritime air capability, as the House will recall, the Government announced in Cmnd. 8288 their intention to increase the Nimrod fleet by converting the remaining three mark 1 airframes to full mark 2 standard, making a total of 34 mark 2 Nimrods. This decision was taken in recognition of the remarkable capabilities of the aircraft in the maritime reconnaissance role, and these capabilities were amply proven during the operations in the South Atlantic. As my right hon. Friend said during his speech in the defence debate on 1 July, 13 Nimrods have already been adapted for air-to-air refuelling. This allowed the aircraft to make regular flights of some 19 hours duration to the Falkland Islands area. Over 150 maritime surveillance sorties have been flown and the information gathered during these missions was crucial to the operations.
The fitting of the Harpoon anti-surface ship missile to the Nimrod, also announced by my right hon. Friend, will

further enhance the aircraft's capability. This will allow us to fully exploit the Nimrod 2's Searchwater radar which can identify ships at extreme range, enabling attacks to be made at ranges of about 70 miles with Harpoon. I must stress, however, that the decision to fit Harpoon does not affect the acquisition of the next generation British Aerospace Sea Eagle missile, to be carried on the Buccaneer aircraft which will be kept in service for maritime operations. The Sea Eagle will probably also be carried on the Tornado.
In addition, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were fitted to Nimrods during the hostilities in the South Atlantic to provide a limited self-defence capability. These also provide an offensive capability against slow-flying reconnaissance aircraft.
The significance of the Hercules aircraft of the air transport force has been amply demonstrated of late, A C130 of 70 Squadron, during the Falklands operation, undertook the longest ever flight of this aircraft type, of over 28 hours.
The programme to extend the fuselages of 30 of the RAF's Hercules fleet to improve their carrying capacity is now far advanced. Sixteen aircraft have already been delivered and the programme is due to be completed by late 1985. The stretching will add an extra 15 ft to the aircraft, thereby increasing the freight bay capacity by 30 per cent. without the attendant costs of additional crews, training, ground support and spares which could have been involved in other options for increasing the capacity of the fleet.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the stretching of the Hercules and the many other changes have been necessary had it not been for a commitment to the Falklands?

Mr. Pattie: All the improvements that I am describing have been in the programme for some time. They are not in any way related to recent events.
Given this increase in cargo compartment length, the resulting super Hercules will be able to carry seven cargo pallets instead of the present five, or, to put it another way, an additional Land Rover and three-quarter-ton trailer.
In terms of personnel capacity, the stretched version will be able to transport 128 infantry troops instead of the present maximum of 92, or 92 paratroops and their equipment instead of 64. A similar improvement will be felt in the aircraft's aero-medical evacuation role. The super Hercules will be able to carry 93 stretcher patients and six attendants, 23 more than the present total.
We are also enhancing the capability and flexibility of the Hercules by fitting station-keeping radar equipment which will enable the airaft to carry out the co-ordinated drop of a parachute assault force, even in poor weather.
Our experiences during operations in the South Alantic also demonstrated clearly that helicopter support is vital in the land battle. Substantial quantities of men and materials were moved by a wide variety of helicopters in appalling weather conditions. It is difficult to foresee a situation in which there could ever be too many helicopters available to our forces. The Chinook helicopter, in particular, proved very useful, with its substantial load-carrying ability, and we shall certainly be replacing those that we lost through the sinking of the "Atlantic Conveyor".
Hon. Members will be aware of the achievements of the Harrier aircraft in tie Falkland Islands. Its successes were


a total vindication of the Royal Air Force's faith in the flexibility, versatility and potency of the VSTOL concept. We hope that other air forces will now follow the prescience of the United States Marine Corps and express an interest in buying the Harrier. It is a superb example of British technology.
As the House knows, we intend to produce at least 60 AV8B aircraft, or Harrier GR5s as they will be known in the Royal Air Force, which we are jointly engaged in developing with the United States. The development programme is proceeding very well; all four United States development aircraft have now flown successfully and a United Kingdom team has recently joined the United States trials programme. The GR5 should prove a very worthy development of the Harrier family to carry the RAF's vertical and short take-off and landing capability into the next century. It will possess greater manoeuvrability, range, endurance and weapon load than its progenitor. Furthermore, the total United Kingdom and United States programme would provide British industry with about £1 billion-worth of work.
The last of the RAF's orders for the Tornado GR1 aircraft, to complete the planned buy of 220 of that type, has now been placed. Conversion to the aircraft is proceeding well at the tri-national tornado training establishment at RAF Cottesmore which opened in January last year. That, as hon. Members will appreciate, is a unique organisation. Not only is there joint training, with nationality playing no part in the allocation of instructors to students, pilots to navigators or crew to aircraft, but the RAF, German Air Force, German Navy and Italian Air Force share the organisation and supervisory tasks. The full complement of RAF aircraft is now stationed at the base, and the first Italian Air Force aeroplane arrived in May. The Chief of the Italian Air Staff recently described the establishment and its activities as
the most tangible witness of the common will which stimulates the NATO Air Forces".
It is difficult to improve on that statement.

Mr. Antony Buck: May I express the appreciation that I and many of my hon. Friends feel of the organisation of visits to Cottesmore? We hope that there will be more. It is one of the most successful visits that we have made. It was impressive to see NATO working in such a co-ordinated manner.

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will be particularly grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. He has the responsibility for organising and co-ordinating the visits.

Mr. Dalyell: I have heard it said that one of the lessons of the Falklands is that the low-flying Tornado would be incredibly vulnerable to the intense ack-ack fire that brought down so many of the Argentine planes; given the extra fire power and expertise of, say, the Russians, one of the things that the Falklands operation has proved is that the Tornado would be highly vulnerable and not a very useful aircraft. I have no idea whether that is accurate. What is the Ministry's answer?

Mr. Pattie: One has to appreciate that the Tornado GR1 aircraft is a whole order of technology further on than anything that was demonstrated in the Falklands conflict. It has far greater speed. As I was about to point out, it has

such attributes as terrain-following radar, enabling it to fly at very high speeds in zero weather and night-time conditions. It has a much better chance of penetrating the Warsaw Pact defences than any of the aircraft operating in the South Atlantic.
At the RAF's tactical weapons conversion unit at Honington where our aircrews are training on the aircraft's weapon systems, and where the first Tornado squadron, No. 9, was formed last month, the superlative characteristics of the aircraft are now also being appreciated. In particular, they are learning of the excellence of its terrain-following radar, which permits day and night and all-weather operations at low level, with the automatic release of weapons. That will add a new dimension to our combat capabilities.
I come now to the subject of a future combat aircraft and the recent considerable interest by hon. Members in the work which industry itself has started on the project that it calls the P110. I think that it would, therefore, be profitable to provide the House with an outline of the complexity of the issues involved.
We recognise that there will always be a high priority requirement for a combat aircraft with the ability not only to deliver weapons accurately against enemy targets on the ground but able to look after itself en route to and from its target by evading, outmanoeuvring and destroying enemy fighters. Such a performance confers the additional ability to undertake purely air combat or dog fight duties.
The Air Staff considered that type of aircraft in air staff target 403. As the House will know, it was found impossible to fund the costs of such a project in the defence forward programme at a time when the RAF was already engaged in the heaviest replacement programme since the war. Nevertheless, studies had been initiated to assess how far the development of new technology in airframes, engines and weapon systems might allow the performance targets of a future combat aircraft to be met, at what cost and in what time scale. In areas of particular challenge, technology demonstrator programmes were started to explore more accurately these new possibilities. Hon. Members may be aware of such specific programmes as fly by wire, carbon fibre structures and digital engine control.
Any aircraft project of that type is likely, however, to be beyond our own national resources unless industry is involved at all levels with particular emphasis on enhancing prospects for export sales and international collaboration. Without some major cost sharing through joint ventures with industry, both nationally and internationally, it would be impossible for the defence budget to meet unaided the heavy front end investment now associated with the new modern high technology combat aircraft.
Much consideration has been directed in the past not only to the technical demands of a new combat aircraft but also to the search for co-ordination of the similar operational requirements of other European nations and the likely demands of the wider world market. The subject has been reviewed on a number of occasions by Defence Ministers of the United Kingdom, Germany and France and their industries have jointly studied the tri-national prospects for a collaborative programme. There was early evidence that neither Germany nor France shared the United Kingdom interest in further development of the short take off and vertical landing concept, which we have so successfully pioneered in the Harrier, and it was


decided therefore to meet the immediate RAF STOVL needs through joint development with America of the AV8B/Harrier mark 5, to which I referred earlier, and to draft a further air staff target—No. 410—to set performance targets to be explored for a much later advanced STOVL combat aircraft. At the same time the search for European partners for a combat aircraft continued. So far the disparity of views on details of operational performance and time scales has not identified a programme which each of us could afford, even in collaboration.
It is deceptively simple to imagine that British Aerospace, with commendable support from many others in the industry, has already found the solution to some of these problems in what it calls the P110 and that all that is missing is Government acceptance. But it was only recently, on 30 June, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a number of formal proposals for consideration from the chairman of British Aerospace. These are being studied with great care and many details will need to be discussed further with industry. We shall wish to examine jointly with industry the market survey and justification for export sales potential, which is a major element in its plans, together with proposals for its own financial investment.
Let me make it quite clear that there is no lack of appreciation of the industrial importance for the whole aerospace sector of timely decisions on future military aircraft requirements or that our military defence base, as I acknowledged during the defence debate, is a most valuable national asset. We applaud the initiatives being taken by industry. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to work very closely with British Aerospace and the other companies concerned, but I hope there will be widespread agreement that fundamental to any decisions must be the confidence of all concerned that it is possible to arrive at a true joint venture which will retain the design capacity at British Aerospace and that any proposal, perhaps a demonstrator programme, can be met out of existing defence budgetary allocations while work continues to find international partners and export markets. The Controller Aircraft will be discussing these vital issues with British Aerospace in the next few weeks.
I should say here that weapons are just as important as aircraft, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on several occasions. We have, of course, decided to continue with the JP 233 airfield attack weapon programme independently following the withdrawal of the United States. We are also working closely with our German partners on ASRAAM—the short range element of the next generation of advanced air-to-air missiles, which forms part of a collaborative package arrangement involving also France and the United States. We are also examining options for a defence suppression weapon and an anti-armour weapon. These systems will provide the main armament of the RAF in the late 1980s and the 1990s.
I said in closing the Royal Navy debate last Monday that even if our forces were equipped with all the most technically excellent and sophisticated weapons, this would be to no avail if we did not have, and retain, the men of the requisite calibre to man, maintain and direct them. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the

Armed Forces, when he replies, will be dealing with our recruitment and retention performance over the past year and with personnel matters in general.
However, I could not let pass the opportunity of mentioning one branch of the RAF, which is, this year, celebrating its fortieth anniversary. I refer to the RAF Regiment. During World War II the regiment fought in every major theatre of war—from the deserts of North Africa to the Normandy beaches and jungles of South-East Asia. In post-war years it has been on active duty in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Malta, Palestine, Aden, Iraq, Egypt, Borneo, Malaya and Kenya. The regiment has recently been equipped with light armoured vehicles of the Scorpion family which so distinguished themselves with the Blues and Royals during the Falkland Islands conflict.
In mentioning the Blues and Royals, perhaps I may put on record the RAF's sincere sympathy and condolences to that famous regiment for the losses and wounding that it suffered as a result of the appalling bomb incident two days ago.
Hon. Members will be aware that a squadron of the regiment went ashore at San Carlos to man the Rapier air defence systems. I should also point out that the regiment has made a particularly valuable contribution to the sales of about 450 optical units and 230 Blindfire units of the Rapier system, together with more than 13,500 rounds, by way of frequent demonstrations which has been much appreciated by British industry. I know that they have impressed potential customers with their efficiency in such displays.
As hon. Members will be aware, Rapier has been sold to the United States air force for the defence of some of its air bases in the United Kingdom. This programme is progressing well, and I believe that the United States air force is considering the procurement of further systems, possibly even extending to some of its European mainland bases. I thought that I should, at this point, say something briefly about the presence and operations of United States forces in this country, which so often come in for misinformed and misguided criticism.
There has been an American military presence in the United Kingdom for an almost unbroken period of 40 years. Since the inception of the North Atlantic Alliance in 1949, successive British Governments have agreed to and welcomed the continuing stationing of American forces at bases in the United Kingdom.
The American forces are here in the interests of our mutual security, and every effort is made to promote friendship and understanding between American Service personnel and their dependants and the local community among whom they live. The work done on a voluntary basis by Anglo-American community relations committees throughout the United Kingdom is a most valuable contribution to this. The United Kingdom provides the American forces with local support and assistance in the same way as do other NATO member countries with Allied forces in their territory. Repayment by the United States for construction and works maintenance amounted to £55 million in 1980 and 1981; in the years ahead this expenditure is expected to rise even higher as new United States construction projects are put in hand. This expenditure directly benefits the local economy by providing employment and income for British contractors and workers. The economy also benefits from the large sums spent in this country every year by the American forces—amounting to many hundreds of millions of


pounds in 1981 and 1982. The employment created by the direct engagement of local people as well as the indirect employment resulting from the sums of money spent on the local economy, amounts to at least 25,000 jobs.
There are those who maintain that the presence of United States forces in this country increases Britain's chances of becoming a target in war. But to argue thus is to miss two crucial points—first, that in any conceivable conflict affecting Western Europe the facts of geography and politics would alone suffice to make Britain, inevitably, a target for attack; and, secondly, that the solidarity of the NATO Alliance as demonstrated by the presence of United States forces in the United Kingdom, and the strategy of deterrence to which those forces contribute so powerfully, are themselves our surest guarantee against the appalling eventuality of another war.
The military security of this country is dependent upon the capacity of the Alliance to deter aggression. It is essential for the success of deterrence that the Soviet Union should believe that the United States will defend Western Europe. The deployment of American forces in the United Kingdom, as in other European countries, is visible proof of the United States' readiness to identify its national security with our own and defend it.

Mr. Richard Needham: Has my hon. Friend any further information about the possibility of the United States air force coming to RAF Kemble? Will he accept that, although comments have been made by some who have no connection with my constituents who live and work there, the vast majority of those who live around RAF Kemble would greatly welcome it if the United States air force decided to come?

Mr. Pattie: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has primary responsibility for this matter, has heard what my hon. Friend said. I am advised that at the moment there is nothing further that I can tell either him or the House.
The Royal Air Force is a close-knit community. It is a mutually supportive system, with each part dependent on the other for the maintenance of their role. If it is a close-knit community, however, it is not one which stands outside the wider national community. The same holds true for all our Armed Forces and I know that my hon. Friend will wish to say something about the various services which the Royal Air Force provides to the community. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the RAF is a fighting service whose professionalism and dedication have won the admiration and respect of the free world. Those were the words that I used in closing last year's debate on the RAF. Recent events in the South Atlantic have more than vindicated my faith in those words. The men of the RAF have indeed proved themselves the worthy successors of their forebears who defended our freedom in the past. The House can rightly feel proud of what has been achieved.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition I join the Minister in expressing condolences to the Blues and Royals and the Green Jackets following the casualties that they suffered on Tuesday. Those were horrific incidents and they show the continuous strain and danger faced, even in their own

land, by those who serve us and defend our country. We hope that the families and relatives of the dead and injured will be able to overcome the tremendous wounding that they have suffered.
This is the fourth defence debate in three weeks and it is becoming difficult to find something new to say. However, the RAF played an enormous part in the Falklands campaign and has been rather unsung, particularly in terms of air transport, the setting up of the base on Ascension Island and the ferrying of goods and services. It was, perhaps, not the most glamorous work, but the campaign could not have been carried through to success without the workhorse role carried out by the RAF. It is right for the House to pay its tribute to the RAF for that work.
I should like to consider the RAF's role in the Falklands garrison. One of the important lessons learnt from the campaign was that we could have done with airborne early warning systems. Is it intended that a Nimrod with airborne early warning should be retained in the Falklands?
Indeed, will the Nimrod production line definitely remain closed or is it likely to be reopened so that we can develop the capabilities that the Secretary of State would like to have maintained, but was unable to do because of the pressure imposed on the defence budget by the Trident programme?
Will the runway extension for the Falklands garrison be completed by the end of August? We understand that an alloy matting system will be used and that it should last for three or four years. What arrangements are being made about the permanent runway at Stanley and is there any chance that a second runway could be provided? Presumably the Hercules aircraft will not be able to operate while the runway is being extended. What will happen during that period? Will we have to depend on the strips at San Carlos, Goose Green and Darwin?
There has been much talk, but nothing official, about the dispatch of a squadron of Phantoms to be part of the Falklands garrison and to replace the Harriers that are at Stanley. May we assume that the Phantoms will be sent to the Falklands on completion of the runway extension and that HMS "Invincible" will return to home waters and other work?
I join the Under-Secretary in congratulating the RAF Regiment on its fortieth anniversary. How many squadrons of the regiment will be with the Rapiers protecting Stanley airport? It would also be helpful to know where those Phantoms will come from. Will they be sent from squadrons stationed in the United Kingdom or from RAF Germany? How will the resulting gap in NATO assignments be filled?
If we send Nimrods to the Falklands the Sea King helicopters, which have some early warning radar, will, we presume, be withdrawn. They have a temporary role and the Nimrods would be a more logical choice for the defence of the islands.
It is generally felt that the RAF will be in the Falklands for a considerable time. We should like to know how the system will work in terms of personnel and postings. Will there be a rotation of units, as we rotate units from Germany to Northern Ireland and back again? The Forces would like to have that information.
Most hon. Members were waiting to hear the Under-Secretary's comments on the P110. British Aerospace has organised a powerful lobby on this issue, but it would be


wrong for the Ministry to allow itself to be stampeded into taking decisions without looking carefully at the needs of the RAF and the role that such an aircraft would play.
However, I cannot but feel some unhappiness about the large douche of cold water that the Under-Secretary poured over the project. I hope that I misinterpreted him, because the industry needs to know where the next plane is to come from. The employment and industrial considerations involved in the development of such an aircraft are of considerable importance, particularly when one bears in mind that the aircraft will be built in areas of already high unemployment, such as Lancashire.
I am not sure that I took the full meaning of what the Under-Secretary said about a pre-prototype or demonstrator model of the P110. An editorial in Flight today said that if the Government did not cough up the money the industry and its foreign collaborators could hawk round a pre-demonstrator model in the hope that money would be forthcoming for the machine to be put into production.
I do not know whether that suggestion has come from the Ministry or the industry, but it has every possible defect. It would maintain uncertainty in the industry, which would not be good for its plans, its labour force or its structure in the next decade. It would also be bad because it would demonstrate lack of support by the Ministry and the Services for the P110 project. It would be better if we knew the Government's attitude, because the industry could then come to firm conclusions about future action.
I hope that the Government will reply quickly to the industry's presentation. I appreciate that the presentation was made only last month, but I hope that discussions will start soon and that the industry's fears about the money that it has put in running out in October can be overcome.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the P110, which is so important to Lancashire in particular and to the aviation industry generally. Did he read the recent speech of the Chief of the Air Staff who speculated on the future of the next combat aircraft and said that he strongly recognised the need for the P110 or, as it is now called, the agile combat aircraft? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that speech represents the strength of the commitment that he would like to see from the RAF?

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that any serving officer in any of the Services, presented with the idea of having a super, better weapon, would immediately make speeches about how much he needed that weapon and how desperate his Service was for it. Whether everyone would reach that conclusion is another matter, but I imagine that such opinions from serving officers must carry great weight.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) for giving way. While we are talking about speeches, and on the subject of the P110 project, does he recollect the speech that the Prime Minister made two years ago, just before the Farnborough air show in 1980, in which she made a strong plea for military aircraft projects to be designed with world markets in mind? Is not the P110 a project which the industry designed with a view to sales overseas, as well as to NATO forces? Does the hon. Gentleman further

agree that the Prime Minister's speech bore some traces of the eloquence of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who has just spoken?

Mr. McNamara: I have a terrible confession to make to the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Lady's speeches are not my normal bedtime reading. However, what she said has been brought continuously to my attention and to the attention of all hon. Members who have any interest in the Air Force. I could almost say that it has been etched on our hearts. I am not certain that the P110 will be etched on the right hon. Lady's heart, as Calais was on Queen Mary's.

Mr. Pattie: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman on the demonstrator programme, as he said that he was not clear about what I had said. It is important that we do not lose the momentum that British industry has developed, and that we do not resort to what Governments tend to do in these situations, which is to have a series of studies in a variety of directions, while nothing happens on the engineering side. The importance of a demonstrator programme, if that is what emerges, is that it is a way of building an aircraft which will test to the point of flying the various technologies that will be needed, whatever form the new aircraft takes.

Mr. McNamara: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I wonder where the money will come from for the front end funding. If the Ministry thinks that it is important to maintain the technologies, it is important to consider the industry and the allied industries in Italy and Germany—to what extent they will be funded, and to what extent the Government are prepared to put in money. That is a matter of fundamental importance, if there is to be a replacement for Jaguar before we have the advanced VSTOL.
I have shown my concern for Lancashire, the county where I was born, and I now show the same concern for Yorkshire, the county that I am happy to represent. Lest the Minister thinks that the P110 is the only aircraft that he will ever hear about, I shall now produce another, and that is the P164. This aircraft seems admirable, and something that the Minister cannot fail to want to produce. The technology is all—British, it has a great British market and a great world-wide market, as well as being a tremendous successor aircraft, and one complementary, to the Hawk.

Mr. Robert Atkins: No.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I said. I said that it was complementary to the Hawk, and that means that the two go together. When the hon. Gentlemen had their briefing last Tuesday night, they should have listened more carefully.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman said a "successor".

Mr. McNamara: If I said "successor", I withdraw it, but I thought I said "complementary".
In this aircraft, which was designed in Brough, where many of my constituents work, to replace the Jet Provost trainer, we have another winner, which could have an impact on training similar to that of the Hawk. If the Ministry is thinking of spending large sums of money—up to perhaps £400,000 on each aircraft—on refurbishing an old and ageing aircraft, the Jet Provost, it should give


careful thought to the P164, which offers the possibility of creating a new aircraft, creating job opportunities and maintaining a lead.
I understand that discussions are going on at official level. The RAF is talking about its needs, and the industry is looking at what it can supply. I know, too, that the advanced stage of the P110 has not yet been reached. However, in my view, it is something that we shall need in the future, and we should do better to think in terms of using a jet trainer that is British manufactured, instead of being forced, perhaps at the last minute when the Jet Provosts are so clapped out that they cannot be used again, to get something quickly from the Italians or the United States. We should do better to consider the matter at this stage.
One or two other matters arise in connection with the Falklands campaign. The Minister briefly spoke about radar suppressor systems. I believe that he has invited the industry to tender, and that he has laid down the specifications. It would be good to know when he intends to reach a decision on the radar suppressor system. Again, it is important from the point of view of British industry, in terms of international markets, and it is important for the RAF to maintain its role. The Falklands campaign showed the need to do that.
I shall finish with two points. First, I wonder whether the Minister, in winding up, will tell us about the success or otherwise of the last big exercise, Priory 82, which was the NATO exercise designed to test Britain's defences. It took place last month. It was a combined operation, in which the air forces of a dozen nations took part. I hope that the Minister can tell the House the results of that exercise. They are particularly important because of the controversy that has taken place over the past few years about the air gap, and whether we have sufficient aircraft to protect our shores.
The other point is of a more domestic nature, and that is the disposal of RAF houses, and military houses generally, and the relationship with local authorities in the areas where the houses are in surplus. It is a matter of particular concern in the south-west, where houses are becoming surplus to requirements and where there are long council housing lists. The Property Services Agency, although it is selling some of the houses to the local authorities, is selling some of them to people locally, many of whom are buying them as second homes. May we be told how the selling programme is going, and whether the Property Services Agency is encouraging local councils to buy the properties?
We have taken the RAF for granted in the Falklands campaign, although it was fundamental to its success—as, indeed, was co-operation between all the Services. Despite all that we say about targets, weapons systems and platforms, the plane is no better than the pilot who flies it. If we have superbly trained pilots, we should supply them with the best possible aircraft and weapon systems.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: First, I must declare an interest. I have spent about 25 years in the defence and electronics industries. That declaration is one of particular pride to me, having seen some of that equipment performing so well in the hands of our splendid pilots over the Falkland Islands.
I want to talk about three subjects in connection with the Royal Air Force: first, the Ministry of Defence as a public purchaser for the defence of the public; secondly, the cost of those purchases; and, thirdly, how we can improve the use of our money and technology to meet the threats that are constantly and frequently changing faster than our programmes are completed.
The principal cause of my concern is the pace of development and delivery of equipment to the Royal Air Force. I welcome the second report of the Select Committee on Defence that was published today. I had the honour to be called before that Select Committee to give evidence on 10 March. Frankly, I would have hoped for a much more radical report, having been through the evidence of those who appeared before the Committee. Indeed, I would have hoped that it might have questioned the need for the Ministry of Defence procurement executive. It employs 43,000 people, of whom 25,000 are engaged on research and 18,000 on the purchase of defence equipment for all the Services
The 25,000 people in research are easily the best pool of technical talent in Western Europe. They are certainly equal to anything that one can possibly find in the United States of America or the Soviet Union. However, in terms of butter mountains and wine lakes, that ocean of talent in those research establishments could be far more usefully deployed in the industries that are trying to supply equipment to the Royal Air Force and the other Services.
There are constant advertisements in the public and technical press for people of scientific quality and calibre. However, one knows that those people are already inside research establishments, unable to get out because of problems of non-transferable pension schemes and doubts as to whether they will be allowed to return to Government service after having served in industry. I should like to see a freer flow there. Those research establishments should be able to advise industry and industry should be able to show that it has qualities that can lead research establishment engineers as well.
My principal concern is the procurement executive. I find from parliamentary questions that my hon. Friends have kindly answered during the past 12 months that only 2,000 of its personnel come from the Services. The end users are not represented among the great swarm of elegant and, I am sure, well-intentioned and kind bureaucrats.
Looking at the evidence given to the Select Committee—the Select Committee said that it hoped that the Ministry of Defence would proceed with the Fisher report—one sees that it touched only tentatively on the basic problem of what the procurement executive's 18,000 staff do.
The principle problem is that most of them have no authority to act on their own. There is no delegation of authority to a level that is commonplace in industry. In my industrial experience, that means that individuals perform far beyond that which they might have thought themselves capable of had they not been given the opportunity.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends have read the Select Committee's report, I hope that they will consider being more daring, rather than combining committees, such as the operational requirements committee and the defence equipment procurement committee, all of which are essentially deputies and none of which is allowed to make a decision. We would then be able to move more clearly towards a point where resources could be effectively used.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): I am sure that we shall all consider my hon. Friend's valuable suggestion. I have read the report that has been published today. It acknowledges—I am sure that my hon. Friend would, too—that we have been trying to push responsibility for cash much further down in the organisation so that people at lower levels have responsibility for spending money. I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that change.

Mr. Warren: Certainly, I welcome it enormously. I am glad that my right hon. Friend intervened on that point. However, if he looked at the evidence given to the Select Committee on 20 January this year by the Society of British Aerospace Companies, he would notice that in paragraph 483 the chairman of the society said that the chairman of the defence equipment policy committee is the chief scientific adviser, but that, once a decision has been taken by that committee, that gentleman has no more authority in terms of seeing how the project, for which he was responsible for giving the decision as chairman, proceeds.
It is in that context that I should like to see responsibility for money forced down. In addition, people should know that their heads are on the block in terms of future prospects and promotion, because they have the responsibility to deliver the goods on time and at the right price.
I do not want to dwell too much on the report that has been published today, but I was disappointed to see that, although it acknowledged that money came in and was subsequently allocated, there was nothing in that report, nor, I suspect, in the Ministry of Defence—I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to assure me that I am wrong—to show that the resources equate with the threats.
Furthermore, when there is an out of balance situation, as is almost inevitable—the threat will be either greater or less than the resources allocated to it—there should be a feedback system which, within the lifetime of the project, will rapidly attempt to trim the ability of the resource to meet the threat as the threat changes.
When I looked at the Ministry of Defence procurement executive chart, which was deployed in the Select Committee by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 November 1981 in the company of Sir David Cardwell—his recent death is, I am sure, regretted by everybody because he gave valuable service to the Ministry of Defence—the first thing that struck me was that it was right until I realised that it was printed sideways.
If one looks at the whole of the procurement executive organisation, one finds that it tends to serve itself rather than the Services, which are off on the side. That is what made me question whether the procurement executive was necessary.
I want to look now at the concept of collaboration which has been espoused by my hon. Friend this afternoon and, indeed, has frequently been referred to in the Select Committee report and outside the House. There is the eternal problem that collaboration is understood in industry but misunderstood in the Ministry of Defence. It worries me that, even now, it has crept into the Select Committee's report.
The report, in paragraph 117, states:
We consider that, because of costs, no one European country is likely to be able in future to produce some kinds of advanced

new equipment. British Aerospace, for example, must look for partners to help finance the P110 aircraft project because the United Kingdom market alone cannot support it.
Paragraph 132 states:
The Tornado project"—
a collaborative project—
has experienced overruns in cost of development, unit production cost and in time scale. These are perhaps not unexpected in a programme of this size and complexity operated by three nations in collaboration.
In other words, the Committee is arguing against the concept of collaboration in the second part and promoting it in the first part. That is after it has taken evidence from the procurement executive which, in August 1977, in a memorandum to industry, said that the concept of collaboration was not valid at all. A document that was produced at that time by the Ministry of Defence and sent to industry stated that
the UK's total costs"—
in terms of what was expected on the AST403—
in a collaborative programme were within 10 per cent. of the cost if the UK designed, devloped and manufactured 300 of exactly the same aircraft.
I am extremely worried that we should think that collaboration is the only way to get a project and to put that project into service in the Royal Air Force. That is not true. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who appears in his guise today as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, is a man of great talent. He is the rapporteur of the Western European Union's Committee on Scientific, Technological and Aerospace Questions, of which I at one time had the honour to be chairman. In his report on a recent colloquy in London he said that the F-16 presents "a form of collaboration which should not be lightly dismissed". The problem is that the word "collaboration" is bandied about without considering exactly what is involved.
In the case of the F-16, four Western European nations collaborated, at the incitement and amazing success of the seller, General Dynamics in the United States, to purchase the aircraft. Yet none of the pilots of any of those four nations had flown the aircraft before the decision was taken to buy it. Furthermore, having been bought, it was found to cost twice the amount the Americans had quoted. So we have to be terribly careful about our concepts of words, such as "collaboration", which creep into our everyday defence language and cost us more money than we would ever dream of spending. One industrial manufacturer, working on the Tornado programme, old me that his black, boxes in the Tornado are now costing him three times as much as they would if he were trying to make them on his own.
The magic word "money" is not properly analysed in defence terms. It has been said that if we spend 3 per cent. more in real terms in a year, we shall be building up to what NATO expects of us, and that if we could spend only 1 per cent. More—4 per cent.—we would have all the defence systems that we need in Britain. That means that if, instead of spending 103 per cent., we spent 104 per cent., everything would be all right. Looked at in those terms, it is clearly nonsense.
People in the United States who have analysed the problem, and writers in The Economist here, have said that they would have thought it was possible within the Ministry of Defence to achieve economies of about 10 to 15 per cent. through better public purchasing. So within the Ministry of Defence, on an equipment budget which


is a very large sector of the total defence budget, there should be a possibility of generating the extra defence we need by more effective public purchasing.
In the Falklands operation, what was quite startling from an industrial point of view was the ability of industry, when the procurement executive was taken out of its hair, to deliver goods and services at a rate which was unprecedented to meet the demands of our pilots in the Falklands.
I give as an example the modification kits which went from British Aerospace to the Harrier force operating off the Falklands. During the Falklands operation, British Aerospace supplied 4,000 kits of spares against what would have been expected to be 1,500 kits in the same time scale. It also supplied 300 modification kits against an expected rate of 15 to 20 in that time scale.
Those were brave actions. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will recognise—as his hon. Friend did in opening the debate—the tremendous efforts made by the workers in the British aerospace industry to support our pilots and our forces in the Falklands. The end result of those efforts was to produce in the Sea Harrier, for example, a readiness rate on the carriers off the Falklands that was three times better than the United States navy is currently able to achieve in peacetime on its own carriers with all their sophisticated support.
I hope that foreign buyers, in looking at our products, will now realise that they should stop wasting their time buying silly things such as Mirages, which are easy to shoot down when one has good British Harriers. Secondly, I hope that we shall have the courage to face the fact that we were a little silly not to work out how to defend ourselves against the simple missile called the Exocet.
With regard to what the British aerospace industry was able to do in support of the Falklands operation, I am proud to say that in Hastings, two companies, Computing Devices and Helleman Deutsch, have produced excellent results and their workers deserve every praise, but when those companies and all the others in the British aerospace industry look at what they are getting out of their efforts, it is another matter altogether. I know that profit is a naughty word among Opposition Members—so few of whom are here today—but I ask the Ministry of Defence to consider the rate of return which is now available, and from which new investment can be made, among the companies working on defence projects.
The profit that is being achieved by companies in Britain is between 3 and 6 per cent. Companies in Britain working on Ministry of Defence contracts and making a profit of 6 per cent. tell me that, in supplying the same equipment from the same production line to the United States, they are not only turning it out more cheaply but making a bigger profit. It is remarkable that, by better production control and better public purchasing by the United States air force, the company is able to achieve a 15 per cent. profit, yet it gets only 6 per cent. when supplying the same equipment to the Ministry of Defence. That is a symptomatic problem that the Secretary of State might discuss with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whereas 20 years ago the return on investment in Government stock was about 2½ per cent., it is now about 12 per cent., and the reverse has happened in industry. Anyone with cash is far better off

giving it to the Government to spend for him than putting it into industry. There is a general problem that the lack of profit in industry is hindering new investment.
I should like to put forward some ideas on how we can do better and get to much-needed projects, such as the P110, at minimum expense and with a minimum of hassle. I think there is a concept in the Ministry of Defence purchasing organisation that one cannot have fixed price contracts because they are likely to give people too big a chance to make profit, or too dangerous a chance to make a big loss, to the detriment of the company concerned and the Ministry of Defence. I do not believe that that is true. I ask the Secretary of State and his colleagues to look at the problem, because fixed price contracts are readily given to those who bid from overseas into Britain.
It is extraordinary that the constraints which are put on home suppliers are not put on overseas suppliers to the Ministry of Defence. As regards missiles supplied for use by the Royal Air Force in Britain none of the procurement has to go through the ordance board as a prerequisite to acceptance, yet that august body has an absolute veto on the life and death of British projects. In saying that, I am quoting a director of a company in Britain which makes missiles for supply to the Ministry of Defence.
What is necessary in terms of defence contracts is control not so much over money as over time. If the time can be shortened, the price drops. I fear that the Ministry of Defence has learnt that to its cost, and to the public cost in terms of stretching the Tornado programme. When the unit cost goes up, the total cost of the programme goes up.
In looking at the future needs of the Royal Air Force, one is first confronted by a lack of air staff targets. Today there has been reference to the P110 and the P164 projects. It is worth looking at what British Aerospace has proposed in regard to both projects. There is a need to replace the Phantom by 1990. It says that it will take eight years to carry out the research and development to get those aircraft into service. It also says that the Provost will need to be replaced by 1995, and I agree with that, but it says that it will take six years to get into service the aircraft that it wants to propose. That means that the Phantom replacement would have to be ordered this year and that the Provost replacement would have had to be ordered in 1979, so there is a real problem there. Not only is there a lack of air staff targets; but it is impossible, even on British Aerospace timetables, to get the answers that we want. I believe that it can be done.
In considering the Tornado, I have looked at two somewhat similar American projects, the F15 and F16. The Tornado was started one year before the F15, but the F15 was in service six years earlier than the Tornado. The F16 was ordered two years later than the Tornado, yet it was in service 18 months before the Tornado. The unit costs are strictly comparable one with the other in pounds per aircraft weight, but in terms of the ability to get there on time it is a matter of management and of delegating—exactly the kind of delegation that the Secretary of State has said he wants to see in the Ministry of Defence—but delegating that authority outside the Ministry of Defence and down into the aircraft companies, which can then be made directly responsible for the projects.
In order to appreciate the problem of delivery time constraining decisions, one has only to consider the quotation that I gave about the cost of collaboration. In 1977 it was stated that the AST403 would be only 10 per


cent. more expensive if collaboration did not take place. Those are Ministry of Defence figures. What I did not quote was that that estimate was based on us starting in 1980, and now we are three years on from that date. I hope that we can move faster towards air staff targets.
How can we solve the problem? The construction of demonstrators is the best way forward, and that would accord with what Admiral Fisher said before the First World War:
Build few and build fast, the next one better than the last.
The resources and the spirit of the Sidney Cams, the Mitchells and the Barnes Wallises are alive, but not very well in the British aerospace industry. We must get those demonstrators in the air to show what can be done.
Demonstrators are not a pre-Second World War concept. One demonstrator programme was the F16 in the United States of America, more than 1,000 of which have now been built. The F16 cost only £20 million to build, including the cost of the engines, which were a free issue. They got two aircraft in the air for £20 million, and they did it in exactly the same way as Lockheed worked on the U2, the SR71 and the Stealth aircraft. The method was to limit the number of people to 50 or 60 of the best engineers, who were given a tight time scale of 18 months to two years and told "Put it in the sky—or you are fired—and then you have got a contract". The words in the dashes may be used in the United States.
The target can be achieved not only by giving incentives to those people but in terms of cost. The reason why the American demonstrator programmes are so cheap is that they are conducted outside the normal company overheads structure. In Britain, aircraft production overheads are about 400 per cent. In the United States, they would be allowed to reach only 120 per cent. of the cost of production, so the programme is automatically cheaper. If the Ministry of Defence said to the British aerospace industry "Here is £50 million. We want two aeroplanes, but we want them in two years and you can have the engines free", one could visit Warton, see the doors open and the aeroplanes would be rolled out on time. The company would not risk failing to reach the Ministry of Defence target if it is a clearly defined one.
In order to meet the air staff targets, we must have those aeroplanes. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the penetration capability of Tornados. The United States of America has conducted studies of both the Tornado and the Jaguar and found that under the current threats that prevail in Eastern Europe, the Jaguar would have a 50 per cent. survival chance and the Tornado about 30 per cent. We are up against threats that are changing very quickly. I am sure that we can meet them, and we are acting to improve the survival capability.
However, we are not deploying the technical staff resources between the industry, the Ministry of Defence and, above all, the Royal Air Force that could meet the problems. We must match our natural aerospace talent to our national defence needs. From our experience of the Falklands, we know that our pilots will always do the rest for us.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: This year's debate on the Royal Air Force was helped greatly by the Minister's opening speech in which he mentioned many vitally important equipment matters. I shall follow him along that road. I join the Minister in paying tribute

to the RAF Regiment on its fortieth anniversary. From what I have seen of the regiment, I have no doubt that it is a crack regiment and that a young man looking for an exciting and honourable career could do no better than to enlist in the RAF, with its developing history, great expertise and dedication. I. wish the regiment well for the future.
I also join the Minister in expressing my support for the United States air force. During the three and a quarter years that I served at the Ministry of Defence I had nothing but the fullest co-operation from that force, which goes out of its way to fit neatly into our society and to cause no trouble. We cannot pay enough tribute to its officers and men for the way in which they conduct themselves in Britain, nor can we say enough about the vital role that it plays, by being stationed in Britain, in the preservation of our peace and freedom. I hope that the force remains with us for as long as the need remains.
Much has been said recently about the importance of the Navy, but we must not forget the vital role of air power in the Falklands and in any future conflict. It is highly mobile and adaptable and can bring concentrated force to bear at the time and place that it is needed. That inherent flexibility must be borne in mind by successive Governments when considering the allocation of resources to defence.
We must not underestimate the courage and professionalism of the pilots on long-range flights, whose aeroplanes must be refuelled in mid-air in order to reach the point where they deliver their weapons or cargo. While I was with the RAF I flew once in a refuelling aircraft. To insert the small refuelling probe into the drone requires great expertise and cool nerve. It put the wind up me. Thank goodness that it does not put the wind up those who must do it daily. I also pay tribute to the men who faced the enormous navigational problems of a vast ocean such as the South Atlantic. It is difficult to arrive on time and to locate the refuelling aircraft. Always there is the sure knowledge that if one has made an error or something has gone wrong one cannot make an emergency landing on a nearby airstrip, but will have to ditch into the sea, where the chances of survival are not great.
Perhaps the Minister could say something about the anxiety that the Port Stanley airfield was not put out of action by the Vulcan raids. There may also halve been a failure in some weapons systems in the attacks on the Falkland Islands radar installations, not all of which went well. The House is entitled to know a little of what happened and, if something went wrong, to know what is being done to put it right.
My next few remarks may be considered to be controversial. I noticed in The Daily Telegraph on 15 July a report of a speech by the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Beetham. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Chief of the Air Staff has entered into political controversy by making a political criticism of the previous Labour Government. Sir Michael criticised the Labour Government for not extending the Port Stanley runway. I would have thought that a wise chief of staff, knowing that an inquiry had been established to investigate all the circumstances leading up to the Falklands issue, might have considered that it was better to leave such questions to the inquiry rather than indulging in politically controversial statements.
As the Chief of the Air Staff has made a political comment, I am sure that he will not mind if I extend a


political invitation to him. Perhaps he will devote a few moments in his next political speech to spelling out whether he foresaw the need for the Port Stanley airport to be extended, whether he informed Labour Ministers of that requirement and whether he has pressed during the past three years for the Government to extend the Port Stanley airfield. It is a bit of a cheek when senior officers, particularly an officer of the rank of Chief of the Air Staff, make political comments when they are not answerable to Parliament for their own actions.
I regret that I have had to raise this matter but I believe that senior officers and chiefs of staff should keep out of the political arena. If they put their foot in it, they cannot complain if someone responds.
I should like to refer to a number of issues that the Minister touched upon. The first is the vital issue of United Kingdom air defence. The Minister read out a long list of improvements that have taken place. Like most informed hon. Members, he knows that almost all the items had either been decided or were in the pipeline during periods of office of successive Administrations. It is a little dodgy for any Administration to claim too much credit for what are partly the efforts of previous Governments over the past 10 to 15 years.
Nonetheless, there is a grave imbalance between the threat posed to the United Kingdom by Warsaw Pact air forces and the United Kingdom air defence capability. It appears to me that there are fewer fighter aircraft defending Britain today than at the time when the Government took office three years ago. No amount of window-dressing in relation to other improvements in the United Kingdom air defence environment can hide the harsh fact that there are fewer fighter aircraft able to take off and to defend the skies of this country.
I wonder what the Minister meant by his reference to the running on of Phantom squadrons. It is my recollection that the Phantoms were due to continue in service in the Royal Air Force until the late 1980s and possible the early 1990s. Does he mean by "running on" that it is intended they should run on beyond the early 1990s? Has the investigation into the fatigue life of the Phantoms reassured the Minister that this is a possibility? It is no good trying to persuade the House and the country that the Government are filling this dangerous gap in our air defences by running on the Phantoms for a period longer than that already proposed by the Ministry in previous plans. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, in his reply, will explain what his hon. Friend meant by "running on" two Phantom squadrons and whether this means that they will be in existence for much longer than originally planned.

Mr. Pattie: Following the plan to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, there was a change of plan which envisaged that the Phantoms, after the introduction of the Tornado F2, rather than running on, could run out. The running on of the Phantoms, which is a change, not in the hon. Gentleman's plan, but in our previous plan, means that there will be more aircraft available than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is a helpful answer. It provides some reassurance. The Government reversed some proposals that would have enabled these extra aircraft to

be available to defend Britain. I am therefore delighted that the Minister has returned now to the sensible proposals that he inherited.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: What worries me is not the running on of the aircraft but the quality of the aircraft that will be flying longer. We had to live through this experience in the Battle of Britain. A very difficult concept is being advanced.

Mr. Wellbeloved: It was for this reason that I mentioned research into aircraft fatigue. I am sure that the Minister will be able to answer the point put by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) when he replies to the debate.
I wish to refer to one or two equipment matters. The first test flight of VC10 tankers has taken place. I should like to know from the Minister why the conversion programme seems to have slipped. It is an important programme. As the Minister has remarked, refuelling tankers are great force multipliers. When one considers the terrible position in respect of fighter aircraft, one has the knowledge at least that the provision of tankers will increase the combat air patrol capability of existing fighters.
The Nimrod airborne early warning programme is also vital, especially as the Shackleton aircraft is now well beyond the stage in which it can be effective in an AEW environment. This programme was due to come into service in 1983. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm the date. In the White Paper, it is stated that the Nimrod AEW "should" enter service next year. That is a worrying word. It must enter service on the due date. Airborne early warning is a vital element in our air defence environment.
The Minister said little about radar coverage for the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom air defence region. There are still some serious gaps in our radar coverage. I hope that the plans that the Government have implemented and the plans that they inherited are speedily closing those gaps. The radar re-equipment programme, according to the White Paper, is well in hand. I hope that the Minister will be able to say how far the AST 888 has advanced. That the position is serious is shown by the development of the Soviet Backfire bomber that has the ability to approach and to attack the United Kingdom base from almost any direction. We are entitled to some reassurance from the Minister that the new radar is ECM resistant.
It would also be interesting to know about progress on the high frequency wave resistant radars that were being discussed in aviation circles a few years ago.
The White Paper states that two transportable radars have been ordered. We need more than two. I hope the Minister can say that essential radars that were programmed as a matter of urgency are in position in those areas, especially in the south-west where they will be vital. If they are not now in position, it means that the Government must have been tardy in the past three years in carrying out this essential re-equipment programme.
The Minister referred to the Sidewinder AIM 9L. I am concerned about that, and about the Sky Flash. I should like some reassurance, and the House is entitled to some reassurance, about whether our missile stocks are up to the NATO war reserve requirements—or are we still below those critical levels? This is a vital issue and the Government must give these assurances.
The Minister did not mention hardened facilities, but I hope that the hardened shelter programme, which is due to be completed in 1983, is well on schedule, and that all our planned hardened shelters will be in operation in due time. What has happened about other plans for hardening facilities such as the ground control and central equipment? I hope that, although not necessarily tonight, the Minister will be kind enough to let me know, perhaps by letter, how the rapid runway repair developments are progressing, I should also appreciate some up-to-date comments on the position of the NBC.
I shall not spend much time on the P110, but I am appalled that the decision on the AST 403 has gone out of the window. I remember being pressed hard by hon. Members who now sit on the Government Benches about the AST 403. It is a tragedy that no action has been taken. I had a letter from the Minister only in June 1980 reassuring me that the matter was rapidly moving forward to fruition, talks on collaboration were reaching a climax, and things would soon be sorted out.
All that has now gone out of the window. We still do not have the AST 403 anywhere near fruition. That was designed to replace the Harrier and Jaguar. I am delighted that the Harrier replacement is taken out. It is essential that the Harrier capacity is retained and developed as a distinct and separate thing from any other future aircraft requirements.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will not leave the country, in another three of four years, bewildered by the lack of a decision on future combat aircraft. It is essential that fast progress is made.
In the few moments left in the short speech that I have tried to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have had one or two interruptions, which has lengthened my speech. There are several essential priorities in the development of air force equipment. I have no doubt that sensors, and particularly communications networks, must be ECM resistant, and must be in hardened shelters. I hope that the Government will spend money on research to ensure that that is so.
As to the heavy use of United Kingdom air space in the time of tension or war, considerable effort will have to be made to develop an effective identification friend and foe system. That will be vital in the congestion of our air space that we expect in times of trouble, and will need to be compatible with other nations' aircraft systems. There is no doubt that the development of electronic warfare weapons must rank high in the priorities of the RAF. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that development is going on.
The development of the next generation of RAF transport aircraft must be being considered by the Ministry. I hope that it will give priority to the development of the short take-off and landing capacity for transport aircraft, and ensure that the floors are strengthened in transport aircraft design so that they will have a roll-on/roll-off capability. The Ministry should be pressing civil air companies to ensure that new aircraft that are developed in the civil fleet have strengthened floors to enable their rapid conversion for military uses, should the need arise.
In the future, all developments of front-line aircraft, and training aircraft, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), should have a war role and should be properly armed with either short or medium-range

missiles, so that they can combine some self-protection, as well as a limited offence capacity, with their main role, whether transport or rotary wing aircraft.
I have no doubt that the Ministry will be developing ideas about the next generation of missiles, with multi-target engagement capability, which will be a requirement of new missiles. That may be achieved by an improved Sky Flash, or it may be necessary to have fresh development of a new missile. I have no doubt that the missiles of the future, whether carried by aircraft or on SAMs, must have a multi-engagement capability, both at medium-low and very low levels. That is an essential development for the future.
There is danger in concentrating high value assets on too limited a number of sites. This applies not only to the Air Force but to the Royal Navy, if I may refer to the Royal Navy in an RAF debate. The proposals to concentrate essential dockyard facilities, for instance, in a more limited number of dockyards means that we are running an enormous risk and putting these essential high-value assets at an unnecessary risk. The same applies to the Air Force and we must look in the future for an RAF capability that can work off established airfields in dispersed circumstances for maintenance, refuelling and rearming in its war role. Airfields are primary targets, so the RAF must have that dispersal capability.
The Armed Forces, in the Falklands, Northern Ireland and other parts of the world in which they are called on to uphold the interests of the United Kingdom, have shown their courage and professionalism. In the Falklands, once again, our Service men have had to pay the price of failures at the top. I pay tribute to the part that the Royal Air Force played in the Falklands war. I know, as do the Minister and the House, that we can look to the RAF to play its full part in whatever responsibilities are placed on it by the Government of the day.
The Armed Forces, and the RAF in particular, have not failed us in any time of need, and the least that we can do as politicians is to ensure that we do not fail them by denying them the equipment that they require to carry out their responsibilities.

7 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has been a Minister responsible for the Royal Air Force, and the general tenor of his remarks was that the Royal Air Force should be strengthened and modernised. In that connection, I make two proposals to the Minister.
My first suggestion is that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force should be expanded and given a flying role. I was delighted to see that on 1 July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
we shall examine, if this proves possible, whether the Wessex 5 helicopters with the TA reinforcing division might be flown by pilots of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force thereby giving RAF reservists a flying role again."—[Official Report, 1 July 1982; Vol.26, c.1061.]
I welcome that statement warmly.
My hon. Friend will be aware that in 1957 the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons were disbanded and that the force was reduced to three maritime headquarter units at Northwood, Pitreavie and Plymouth. These units were deployed to support the regular operational centres so that,


in times of intensive operations when a higher than usual manning level was called for, they could operate to the full.
All this was extremely useful. But Royal Auxiliary Air Force officers were disappointed that they lost their flying role. It is relevant that in 1975 the vice-chairman of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Council, Air-Vice Marshal Johnstone, made proposals to inaugurate a Royal Auxiliary Air Force presence in the Royal Air Force's search and rescue operations organisation. He suggested, on the grounds of economy, that it might be possible to infiltrate Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel into some of the search and rescue squadrons gradually by training up crews to certain standards to take over from their regular counterparts during weekends and holidays.
I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend's proposal goes even further than that. In the interests of those highly experienced Royal Air Force pilots who enter civilian life and wish to remain Royal Auxiliary Air Force pilots, I hope that my hon. Friend will look carefully at this proposal, as there seems to be a case for having at least one Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadron and eventually, I hope, Scottish, English and Welsh helicopter squadrons which could have either a transport and support role or a search and rescue role. I hope that this matter will be pursued resolutely.
My second proposal to the Minister concerns the P110. Although I welcome all that my hon. Friend said, as far as it went, I hope that he will in due course be able to go a little further and commit the Government to helping with financial resources for the development of a prototype.
I raised this matter with my hon. Friend four and a half months ago. Since then, there has been support for it from both sides of the House and from trade unionists, including the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions' aerospace committee and, I might add to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, also Sir Michael Beetham. In this context, I welcome what he said, because he dealt specifically with the military aspect of the P110. He was reported in The Daily Telegraph on 15 July as saying that the new attack fighter could be just the aircraft that the RAF would need for an "out of area" role which Phantoms were to undertake in the Falklands. He went on to say that the Royal Air Force wanted a ground attack aircraft with a good air combat capability to replace the Jaguar.
It seems altogether correct that Sir Michael should have come to this view. As a single-seat fighter, the P110 can be likened to the Spitfire in its time, being both agile and speedy. It is vital for Britain's security. Much of its development would provide British Aerospace and other associated companies with the modern technology and design capability to produce the supersonic Harrier to meet air staff target No. 410. As we all know, the Harrier has abundantly proved its worth in the battle for the Falklands.
I am aware that occasionally detractors ask what is the use of having a modern defence industry. I was glad that the Defence Estimates said robustly that defence equipment expenditure supported directly 240,000 jobs in British industry and another 190,000 indirectly and that sales of defence equipment created another 140,000 jobs. It went on to say that defence sales transactions this year would reach the figure of £1,800 million.
In the case of the P110, developing it on a collaborative basis with Germany and Italy seems to have a great deal of merit. I believe that the actual number of jobs involved in the 1990s could be in the region of 40,000 and that there would be thousands of jobs more immediately at stake. In the absence of this project, the military division of British Aerospace would experience a savage contraction, and undoubtedly there would be adverse consequences for technology.
Of necessity, the defence industry encourages and generates the need to keep abreast of advanced technology, and the generation of sophisticated equipment which would be missed if this project did not go through would mean initiating the disintegration of highly qualified teams which, if allowed to continue, could be irrevocable.
I ask Ministers to give favourable consideration to providing financial support for the construction of a prototype. In due course, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able, in a collaborative venture, to come forward with a Royal Air Force order for the P110.
Ministers deserve to be congratulated on all the support that they gave the Armed Forces during the Falklands conflict. In some ways, we find that we do not as a country crow or boast about victories. Too often we go to the opposite extreme and eulogise such disgraceful disasters as the charge of the Light Brigade. But I suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends share fully the credit with our Armed Forces for the splendid victory.
I hope that in due course the Government can support my two proposals to expand the Royal Auxiliary Air Force by giving it a flying role and also by helping to fund the construction of a prototype P110 and proceed with it. If they can, it will be extremely good news for the Armed Services.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall take up the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) later in my remarks. First, I want to take the Minister down memory lane.
At the outset of the war, the hon. Gentleman was three years of age. I want to talk about three aircraft which were in service then. He has probably never heard of them, or perhaps as a child he had models of them. There was the Fairy Battle, the Miles Master and the Gloster Gladiator.

Mr. Robert Atkins: What about the Brabazon?

Mr. Carter-Jones: That came much later, I might point out to that young man. I am talking about 1939. Those were three of our front-line aircraft and they were operated by first-class aircrew. They were flying aircraft, but were not fit to be flown in conditions of war in 1939.
The Minister must bear in mind that he is the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. At that time, we also had two of the best aircraft in the world. I refer to those two superb aircraft, the Spitfire and the Hurricane. They were not paper aircraft. They were real. There is a marked difference between having a plan on paper and producing what we did not have in 1939 and 1940 in the Battle of Britain. We did not have enough of them, but at least they had been produced and we could repeat production. The Minister of Aircraft Production in those days did extremely well. They were produced in sufficient numbers, but the Battle of Britain was a very close-run thing.
In my view, if we go to the trouble of training aircrew, we have to make sure that they get the best aircraft available for the time at which they are flying. It was dreadfully unfair in 1939 to have men flying Fairy Battles and Gloster Gladiators when there should have been more Spitfires.
Towards the end of the war, I flew what was probably one of the best aircraft produced. I was a navigator flying in Mosquito night fighters. They were superb aircraft. They were not paper aircraft. In fact, they were made of wood, but with superb engines and a good airframe, and they ended up with superb radar equipment, the Mark X AI.
A point comes when an aircraft can be stretched to do more than was intended. As I listened to the Minister talking about what was to happen in the 1990s, my impression was that he was talking about stretching aircraft which are now flying beyond their capabilities. He will have to watch that extremely carefully.
I remember seeing the flying bedstead after the war. It was the first time that we saw an aircraft take off vertically, and we were all surprised. It became the Harrier, and we all know what the Harrier can do. It is an extremely capable aircraft, but because of advancing technology, it has a limited life. The Minister knows its limitations.
In the Falklands we showed what could be done with superb aircraft and aircrew. It was a close-run thing. We did not have many spares. We were lucky that we had good servicing; otherwise matters might have turned out differently.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred to the P110. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement trying to sell the P110. He is not a salesman. Incidentally, if he manages to sell that aircraft, so much the better. The Minister has a responsibility to procure a first-class aircraft for the 1990s for our first-class aircrews. But there lies the important question. From 1930 through the 1950s and 1960s the aircraft industry showed and gave the Royal Air Force what it needed. The Minister must recognise now that the RAF needs British aircraft. Sometimes we decry our ability. I do not want to see British technology lost. I am not keen on complete integration and collaboration with other countries. We have wasted too many of our skills and resources in that way. The P110 is a great concept, and the Minister has a first-class opportunity to make use of existing technology to provide for 1990 onwards.
Somebody took decisions in the early 1930s that led to us having Spitfires later. We were lucky to have efficient pilots. I have no doubt that in 1990 we shall have efficient pilots. But is the Minister sure that we shall have the right aircraft? Time and technology move on. I do not want someone in the 1990s—I think that I shall be young and fit enough myself—to say to the Minister "You made a mistake in 1982, mate, when you decided not to order that aircraft." It will then be too late. The P110 is a paper aircraft, and paper aircraft do not fly. When paper aircraft are turned into reality, they become proper defence weapons.
I end with three questions. Is the Minister saying that we shall not be using fighter aircraft in the late 1990s? I do not believe that he is. I believe that the Minister wants to see British pilots in British aircraft in the 1990s. What aircraft will those pilots be flying? I warned the Minister that an aircraft can be stretched too far. One can go from

mark Ito mark IV, but there is a limit to the number of modifications that can be made to an aircraft. In 1940, the Spitfire was the finest aircraft in the world. The Mosquito was the finest night fighter in the world in 1944. Those aircraft could not cope with the present MIG fighters, and it would be absurd to suggest that they could. The Minister must realise that in the 1990s and 2000s there will be new aircraft to be faced. I do not believe that the Minister has made provision for that.
Will the Minister decide to buy aircraft from another country? If we depend on that, we shall have to have what they allow us at their price. Those other countries may have acquired our technology in the past and we may not be able to replace that loss. I urge the Minister to support a new aircraft, such as the P110, to preserve our technology. No other country builds fighter aircraft without Government support. The Minister knows that British Aerospace is strained to the limit by the airbus and the HS146. There is no money left to produce a new aircraft.
The Minister is an old friend of mine. A junior Minister resigned because of a disagreement on naval matters. He turned out to be right. I do not want the Minister to resign. He must face the problem that we are discussing. The Treasury does not fly aircraft. It passes notes. The Minister must take Treasury officials by the scruff of the neck and say "The Royal Air Force is entitled to the best aircraft possible now and in the 1990s." It is the Minister's job to see that the Royal Air Force gets those aircraft.

Sir Hector Monro: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). We seem to be of the same aircrew vintage. It was good to hear the names of some of the aircraft one used to fly having an airing in the House. The hon. Member for Eccles made two valid points, upon which I should like to compliment him. First, he spoke of the danger of stretching aircraft too far. Over the years one is always hearing that new modifications are being brought in. They add weight and reduce performance. That never works in the long run.
Secondly, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman—it is emerging as an important point in the debate—that early decisions must be made about aircraft for the Royal Air Force. The P110 is the most important of those aircraft. When we talk about aircraft that we should love to see flying now, I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about the scrapping of TSR2, which was the biggest aircraft disaster since the war. We lost a remarkable aeroplane.
Too often, when we have these debates on the Royal Air Force, we talk about highly sophisticated equipment—missiles and communications systems—and great policy decisions. We forget that the Royal Air Force is not an impersonal collection of hardware but consists of men and women—pilots, ground crew, technicians and headquarters staff. It is as personal and integrated as any Army battalion or ship's company. We underestimate the importance of the officers and men and women of the Royal Air Force who do such a fine job each day for us.
During the Falkland debate I paid a handsome tribute to the Government's decision and achievement in sending the task force to sea so quickly. I congratulated the task force on everything it achieved in the Falklands. It is fortunate that so many men have returned safe and well. Again, the nation underestimated the RAF's importance in


that operation. Its participation was tremendous and varied. The number and type of aircraft and helicopters involved show that. The pilots and aircrew deserve especial praise, which they would gladly share with the Fleet Air Arm. More than 2,000 operational flights were carried out from the aircraft carriers and that was a triumph in itself and a great tribute to the engineers who maintained a 90 per cent. serviceability rate.
We have blandly spoken about flight refuelling, but few realise the tremendous airmanship necessary to achieve flight refuelling to the RAF's standard of perfection. The modifications to our aircraft were carried out extremely quickly and that enabled the Hercules and Vulcans to fly enormous distances in the South Atlantic. I must stress the importance of airmanship. It is a very tricky and highly skilled job to intercept the tanker and to carry out the probe operation, particularly in the knowledge that there is no diversion base and if the operation is unsuccessful they would be in the sea. Many Harriers flew to the South Atlantic. The pilots were in single-cockpit aircraft and had to carry out all the operations themselves. It requires the highest skill to do that and to end up on a carrier off the Falkland Islands.
Our Hercules flew very long distances. The Minister spoke of more than 20 hours. That brings back nostalgic thoughts of carrying out standard patrols of that duration in Catalinas. I am only glad that we did not have a flight refuelling then, because we would have been up all week.
I am glad that hon. Members have paid full tribute to the RAF Regiment in the year of its fortieth anniversary. Few commentators mentioned its presence in the Falkland Islands, what it was doing and how effectively it carried out its work. Was there sufficient public relations input to explain what the RAF was doing? It is sad that the media do not concentrate enough on squadron numbers. We talk about an RAF Harrier but not a Harrier of No. 1 Squadron, as we should do. It is one of the squadrons in the Falkland Islands. However, I only found that out last week. In addition, 18 Squadron had the Chinook.
Each day the squadron numbers of the Vulcans, Victors and other aircraft involved in the operation should have been given. During the last war we built up the squadrons. Throughout the world, 617 Squadron was known as the Dambuster Squadron. We built up 1 Squadron, 73 Squadron, 249 and so on as the great fighter squadrons. Coastal Command had 201 and 209 Squadrons. We should concentrate on building up the image of our RAF squadrons. That does an immense amount for morale. In addition, the squadrons feel that it is right to have such publicity. I would love to know which squadrons flew in the South Atlantic during the recent operations.
The Minister has been asked about developments at Stanley airport. In response to a question, the Minister has said that the runway at Port Stanley is to be extended to 10,000 ft. What ground facilities are envisaged by way of hangers and communications? Do the Government intend to build up some of the other airstrips in the islands, which could be of advantage to us in future? Are we contemplating any arrangement with Chile for a diversion base in case the weather suddenly became impossible in the South Atlantic? As the Minister knows, to take off on a flight of several thousand miles with no diversion base is not an attractive prospect.
I hope that the Minister will say a little at the end of the debate about the expected living conditions in the Falklands during the next six months or so. I appreciate that some of the temporary buildings and tents were lost with the "Atlantic Conveyor". However, our Service men obviously far outnumber those who can be billeted in private houses in Port Stanley. How long will we have to wait until there is something approaching adequate living conditions? We think of the men carrying out dangerous missions, such as lifting mines, in difficult conditions and looking after South Georgia in extreme arctic weather. I hope that the Ministry and the Government will consider extending the South Atlantic medal to those who are presently helping to rehabilitate the islanders. The medals of those who fought will have a rosette and that distinction is quite correct.
Why was the RAF so successful? No one ever doubted the courage of our pilots and aircrew, but the other vital ingredient in that success was the training. Over the years we have developed exceptional skills, as demonstrated to this country and to the world by the Red Arrows and by the bombing competitions in which the RAF has been so successful. However, we must not skimp on training. Aircraft and missiles are very expensive and a high standard of airmanship is required if we are to deliver our attacks effectively and get the best from our aircraft and weapons. No doubt the success of the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm in the Falklands was closely related to the training given. It has always been the same.
I shall quote from a book by the Group Captain Laddie Lucas, who was one of our great wing leaders during the war and a fine squadron commander. He did not write as a regular, although he was a brilliant pilot in his own right. He mentioned Sir Douglas Bader flying over the North Weald to the station that Group Captain Lucas commanded and wrote:
If any of the young squadron pilots were about at the time, I always made a point of running two or three of them over to the airfield in my car to watch him land. As an exercise in the control of an aeroplane and the use of sensitive, sympathetic hands, it was invariably a refined and accomplished performance. A tight ciruit, contained within the vicinity of the perimeter of the aerodrome, a finely judged, slow, curving approach, with the throttle cut right back and the engine popping … and there was the Spitfire, stalling lightly on to three points within a few yards of the start of the runway … and there was the classic demonstration of the real art of flying.
A few lines later, Group Captain Lucas wrote about Sir Dermot Boyle, then air officer commanding 11 Group. The following passage highlights my point.
Like Bader, he was a product of the Royal Air Force College at Cranwell. There, and elsewhere, the peacetime serving officers had obtained a training which, by its standards, demands and throughness, stood them apart from the rest. I saw Dermot Boyle land a Mosquito, the first time he came to visit us at Bentwaters, with a style and an authority which I had not witnessed during all my previous months with 138 Wing at Cambrai. And I don't suppose for a moment he was, at the time, with all his other work, in what we would normally call regular flying practice. The brute fact was that the first-rate, peacetime professionals in the Service, particularly those who had graduated from Cranwell, had been given the finest military flyng background in the world.
It is important that that continues. I have examined the syllabus of the Royal Air Force flying training and I am faced with the question mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). What will be our basic trainer to succeed the Jet Provost? Some say that we should use a light, unsophisticated aircraft such as the Bulldog. Others say that we should use an aeroplane


such as the P164, which I believe to be too similar to the Hawk for basic and subsequent training. We must find a basic trainer in the near future.
A host of questions must still be answered. Do we want a tandem trainer or a side-by-side trainer? Instructors cannot come to a unanimous view. Time is not on our side.
I am worried about a phrase on page 37 of the Estimates which reads:
flying training will be further streamlined.
I know from my visits to RAF stations that many pilots would gladly have more flying hours. I hope for an assurance that the Minister does not visualise a reduction in flying hours for squadron pilots. Nothing is as effective as hours in the air. We cannot live by simulators.
I went on a valuable 10½-hour sortie last year in a Nimrod of 201 Squadron doing a tapestry in the North Sea photographing fishing boats. It was an effective sortie by highly experienced air crew, but I wonder whether that is the best use of a Nimrod. Could not such a task be done by a twin-engined piston aircraft more cheaply? Has the Minister or his colleague in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursued that possibility, which I have mentioned in the past?
Low-flying is a problem in many constituencies. However, we must persevere with the programme and not be put off by complaints. We have rightly extended low-flying areas so that the frequency of flights over an area is significantly less. Now that the people have seen on television the importance of low-flying in warfare, I am sure that they will accept that our pilots must train at low levels if we are to receive the best return for our money.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) speak about the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. No one has a greater right to do so. He is the son of a Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadron commander and the nephew of three men who also commanded squadrons in the war. No family has done more than his for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. He made a valid point. I am a former member of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and I may be biased, but it is right to consider carefully the flying role that has been mentioned in speeches earlier this year.
If we are to have more squadrons, whether in the Royal Air Force Regiment or whether eventually we have flying squadrons, I hope that we will use the old squadron numbers, which mean so much geographically throughout the country. The numbers 600 and 601 are important in the South and 602 and 603 are important in Scotland. I hope that all the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons will have the best possible equipment and conditions of service.
It is important, not only in terms of the effective fighting capabilities of the RAF, but in relation to the bridge between the public and the RAF, that there is an opportunity to serve in the reserves. Few people can do that. It is possible to join the Royal Auxiliary Air Force defence squadrons and, through the universities the RAFVR, but many more would like to join. The link between the RAF and the civilian population would be enhanced if we had a substantially larger reserve. There is enormous good will for the RAF and the opportunity should not be missed.
I have thought carefully about my suggestions which I believe have possibilities. The Royal Air Force, the Army and the Navy have never stood in higher esteem in the

thoughts of our people. We have a great opportunity to build on strength and success and to continue to develop the Royal Air Force—a very fine fighting Service.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The debate started just before half-past five. Eight hon. Members, and possibly more, wish to take part. Will hon. Members please bear that in mind when making their speeches?

Mr. Bruce George: I am sure that you were not addressing me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not take advantage of there not being an overwhelming number of my colleagues wishing to speak. Usually, large numbers of hon. Members do not clamour to speak in the Services debates. If this were a major debate Back Benchers would find it difficult to make contributions.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made an important point about the need for training and flying hours. The Select Committee on Defence recently visited West Germany. Our report mentions some disquieting features. Fuel restrictions were such that the number of hours flown caused anxiety. Some of the more experienced pilots were giving up some of their hours to allow the less experienced pilots to gain flying experience. I wonder how long it will be before the experienced pilots become less experienced and the inexperienced pilots develop the experience necessary for the task.
The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) criticised what he regarded as a less than radical report by the Defence Committee published today. The report is important. I am sure that it will receive the treatment that it deserves in the Ministry of Defence. We all want real value for scarce resources.
We need to devise a structure for decision making that will produce equipment at the right price, in the right amount and at the right time and that will be of benefit to society. No organisation can look inwardly and say with too much satisfaction that its institutional arrangements are beyond improvement. I am certain that some of these recommendations, if implemented, will go some way towards improving the process of decision on procurement within the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Member for Hastings undermined his own case by too sharply contrasting the alleged deficiencies; in the procurement process in the United Kingdom with a procurement Shangri-la in the United States where everything appeared to be done better. He should have referred to the F18 project, which was a loser in a fly-off competition with the F16. No one appeared to want it, but the politicians induced the United States Navy to purchase it. It led to billions of dollars in cost overruns. The Harrier was one of the projects that may have been affected detrimentally as a result of that strange procurement process. Therefore, it is not particularly wise to point to the process in America as the one to be followed.
Another example is the way in which the Americans procured the new battle tank—the Abrams XM1. That was rushed through to aid Detroit and Chrysler. It resulted in tanks that were produced with imperfect engines. The hon. Member for Hastings should read that fine book by Jaques Gansler called "The Defence Industry". That drew attention to the severe problems facing the defence industry in the United States. The smaller manufacturers were severely hurt and the subcontractor network was cut


to ribbons. Therefore, while one can rightly point to deficiencies on this side of the Atlantic, one must be careful in drawing comparisons without going into detail.
In common with other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the skill, bravery and endurance of our Service men in the Falkland Islands and, particularly in this debate, to the Royal Air Force. The RAF did not play such a major role as the other Services but it nevertheless made a significant contribution to the eventual victory. Although high technology is essential in any conflict, it is important not to forget that it is a human being who presses the buttons. It is manifestly untrue that modern warfare is fought exclusively with modern technology and that the best technology wins.
One of the advisers to the Defence Committee, Brigadier Kenneth Hunt, said recently that the British had a secret weapon in the Falkland Islands known as "feet". It was the ordinary infantryman and the unsung mechanic who contributed enormously to the campaign. They may not have fired any guns or pressed any buttons, but their role was instrumental in our eventual success. We must pay tribute to such people.
Much must be learnt from the conflict, and learnt swiftly. We do not have the luxury of time to study and pontificate for years. We do not want to see what happened to earlier Royal Commissions or committees of inquiry which took years to deliberate and produced reports which were pigeonholed. We must carry out a sophisticated analysis of the conflict and produce recommendations for improvements that must be made. I trust that decisions will be made on a rational basis, because often in defence decision making the end product reflects the institutional arrangements and the conflict between the Services. We must stand back from the sectarian interests of each Service and take decisions based on our overall defence requirements.
We must have swift decision making. I do not suggest that that should be done to the detriment of correct decisions, but undoubtedly some quick fixes will have to be made. It is easy to make a swift decision when a deficiency must be made good, but sometimes the quick fix can prove to be inadequate and expensive. The United States has resuscitated and brought back into service ships that were destined for the scrapheap or museums. One critic said that if the Army did the same it would be akin to digging up General Custer. Perhaps there are faults in the quick fix or in modernising ancient equipment and putting it into the sea or into the air. On the other hand, if glaring deficiencies are exposed in the Falklands operation and if remedying those deficiencies takes time there must be immediate solutions, perhaps involving off-the-shelf purchases from elsewhere.
We must not send sailors to sea or pilots into the air without the weapons systems for their protection. A protracted decision making process taking five or 10 years to produce a solution cannot be accepted. Therefore, if quick fixes are essential, we must employ them.
The report of the Defence Committee pointed out, what we are all in any case aware of, that the decision-making process is very long. For example, in the decision to procure the Tornado the Ministry gave approval for United Kingdom participation in the initial stages of the MRCA project in 1968. The planes are only now coming into

service. Therefore, if the inquiries prove that such delays are wrong, and if we need equipment, 10 years is far too long to wait.
Parliament is in the van of the inquiry process. There has been a tendency over the years whenever we have a military failure or success—particularly a failure—to entrust the inquiry to a Royal Commission of worthy, but ancient and venerable, figures from outside this institution. We have been bypassed. One good aspect of the Franks inquiry is the participation of hon. Members. Even better are the inquiries by the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Those inquiries will show that Members of Parliament are competent to look rationally at problems and that they have the right to inject their views into the process of determining our defence policy until the turn of the century.
Parliament has produced many major reports on military ventures. In the eighteenth century, the military and naval failures a Toulon and the Walcheren expedition in the Napoleonic wars were the subjects of major inquiries by a House of Commons Select Committee, as was the failure of the Army in the siege of Sebastopol. There was an inquiry before and after the Boer War. It is important for the House to be involved in the analysis of the Falklands campaign. We have too often been bypassed on defence matters in the past. The House has a contribution to make and I am certain that the reports, if considered with the seriousness they deserve, will enhance the Select Committee system and Parliament. They will also improve our defence capabilities for the next generation.
Many lessons must be learned, some of them peculiarly British. Some lessons will be learned by our allies and some by our enemies—existing or potential. I have learnt one lesson with which others may disagree. I do not want to rake up old problems, but I cannot see how it will be possible to maintain existing commitments to improve our conventional capability in the Armed Forces, maintain a garrison in the South Atlantic—perhaps the Government have a hankering for a force with an extra-territorial dimension—and at the same time procure a successor to Polaris.
If the Argentines are so unsporting as not to accept the results of the conflict—I suspect that they will not—we shall need to maintain a sizeable garrison so that we do not have to send another task force five or 10 years from now. It will mean lengthening the runway and building an infrastructure. Our troops cannot live in tents for the next 10 or 15 years. We shall need a number of Phantom squadrons and we shall need to maintain one or more hunter-killer submarines and at least 2,000 men. How much will it cost? The Minister says that the Treasury will sanction payment outside the Ministry of Defence budget, but for how long? The cost will be on top of our existing commitments. The Government will find that three into two does not go. It will be impossible to maintain a viable conventional contribution to NATO and procure a successor to Polaris.
There are other lessons to be learnt. The lack of AWACS was damaging. The Vulcan bombing raids were probably the longest ever strategic raids mounted by any air force. The in-flight refuelling was staggering, but the end product was hardly worth the effort. A few weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what the likely cost would be of repairing the runway at Stanley. The


answer is, not a great deal. With the Harriers, the Vulcans and the bombing from ships one wonders what went wrong. The JP233 will be a valuable acquisition.
The Select Committee on Defence recently went to the United States. We were pleased with our briefing from McDonnell Douglas on the progress with the collaborative ventures AV8B and the Hawk. It is said that an outstanding feature of the South Atlantic conflict was the performance of the Harrier. It achieved immense success although heavily outnumbered and fighting at the limits of its range. Before eulogising the plane and gloating too much, we must remember that in a different environment, fighting against a better and more sophisticated aeroplane than the super Etendard or the Mirage—I apologise to the Dassault factory at Mérignac—the Harrier will be even more taxed. However good a plane it is, it has its deficiencies. The AV8B will be a considerable improvement.
We should compliment not only the pilots but those responsible for the operational maintenance and readiness of the Harriers. The Harrier ground crew who kept the aircraft flying for 90 per cent. of the time are unsung heroes.
Another group who do not always get complimented from the Opposition Benches are those who worked extra hard and long in the middle of the conflict to provide the supplies: for example, British Aerospace in converting Nimrod for in-flight refuelling; Racal, working overtime on surveillance systems; Fairey; Ferranti; Lucas, where 1,400 men worked overtime and gave up their holidays. Industry responded quickly and efficiently to the demands.
The defence industry is often denigrated from these Benches. It is said that the machinations and desires of the war lords compel country to fight country. Some may have that desire, but the defence industry does what it is paid to do. If there is blame, it must be attached to the politicians and not necessarily to the producers. I listened to and watched the industry representatives who came before the Defence Committee; I did not have the impression that they were the potential instruments of repression who would necessarily cause the next world war. The defence industries employ a large number of people. As long as they are democratically controlled and politicians make proper decisions about peace and war we should not get paranoid about an industry that is essential for national survival.
Modem warfare is much more than a contest between rival electronic systems. The campaign in the South Atlantic has been a sober reminder of the strengths and limitations of technology and the importance of the human factor. It has also shown us the need for adequate defence.
Whether one believes that the action was offensive or defensive depends on one's political perspective. Many people regard defence at any level as threatening. Many people in my party would regard arming a motor boat as threatening another country and constituting a danger to international society. But I feel no guilt whatsoever in supporting a proper defence policy. If adequate defences could be provided by knocking 2 per cent. off GNP, everyone would be delighted. But it may require 5 per cent. and there could be circumstances in which it might require even more, although I hope to God not. The amount must be determined by the threat.
Times change. In 1914 we had a few months and the protection of the English Channel to remedy the appalling deficiencies in our defence capability. One benefit of the

Boer war debacle was the creation of a better apparatus in the defence Ministries, which led to us having one of the finest Armed Forces that we have ever put into the field. We were not prepared for a long conflict, but we had the breathing space to make good the deficiencies. Even in the Second World War we had the breathing space of the phoney war and, after all, the equipment was not too sophisticated so it was easier to remedy the deficiencies. Even in the South Atlantic we had a breathing space, in the time that it took the task force to arrive.
We all hope that there will be no future conflict, but if there is we may not have a breathing space. We cannot suddenly open up a production line that has been closed. The warning may be only a week, a day or an hour. One lesson in the Defence Committee's first report on ammunition storage in West Germany is that if there is a sudden attack—I do not regard that as probable, but it is possible—not only will there be a problem getting ammunition and reserves from the United Kingdom; there will be a considerable problem getting the ammunition out of the ammunition storage sites in Germany because of sabotage—destruction of the railways and other lines of communication. We need adequate reserves. If large quantities of ammunition and missiles are expended in a conflict we should not have to run to the United States.
We need adequate defences. We fought this conflict more or less unaided, although historians and journalists will reveal the extent of American assistance. But in this modern age one cannot fight a defensive conflict on one's own. The future of our defences lies within an alliance. British defence should not be so reduced as to make our contribution to NATO minimal.
I reject the view that we should have a policy of unarmed neutrality or even armed neutrality. That view is not a licence for the United States to do as it wilt without any restraints placed upon it by other members of the Alliance. It is not a plea for a vast expansion of defence expenditure, or a recognition that we should rearm without taking positive steps to seek to bring about disarmament. We must play a part in NATO and work for proper arms reduction as well as ensuring—this is not necessarily inconsistent—that we have the right level of forces, the right range of weapons equipment, the right supplies of ammunition and the right quality of personnel. Then perhaps the rival blocs will be in a stronger position to bring about what we must all desire—a reduction of weapons and eventual disarmament.
In conclusion, I should like to compliment those who took part in the conflict. In the first place, I spoke as a sceptic of the operation. I am not seeking to say that now we have won the conflict I applaud it. I do not wish to go over old arguments. I was sceptical then and I am sceptical about the future. I do not wish to give a false impression. Even though Argentina's forces were not of Soviet standards and even though its army may be formidable when suppressing its unarmed civilian population but would not be a match for our Armed Forces, nevertheless, the Argentines had enough weapons and enough brave pilots and soldiers to cause us problems. Having said that, I am delighted that there has been a successful outcome. I hope that there will be a proper long-term solution because short-term solutions, by definition, will not be applicable in five or ten years from now.
I compliment those who fought and I commiserate with the relatives of those who fought and died. We have defence forces of which we can be proud. We should not


undervalue their contribution or send them into a conflict one year or ten years from now without the proper support—which means, unfortunately, money.

Mr. Edward Gardner: My interest in the debate is as wide as that of any other hon. Member, but I wish to focus attention on one aspect of the defence debate that concerns my constituents—the P110.
British Aerospace described the P110 as
a single seat agile combat aircraft powered by two Rolls-Royce RB 199 engines.
It is more than that; it is the best fighter that we have ever had or are likely ever to have. It is years ahead of its time and I cannot but expect that it will provide in a world market one of the best sellers of this type of fighter aircraft. We neglect its development nationally at our peril.
The conception of the P110 is the achievement of the brightest design team in the country and perhaps one of the most brilliant design teams working today. It has produced an aircraft of which Britain can well be proud. In the late 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s the P110 promises to be in the position that the Spitfire occupied in the late 1930s and the early 1940s. The money that has been provided for the development of this astonishing aircraft—it really is an astonishing aircraft in terms of high technology—has come from private investment. Altogther, about £25 million in capital has come from seven leading aerospace companies. That amount of money reflects and measures the faith of those companies in the future of the P110.
I do not want to take this point too narrowly but the future of the P110 is the future of the British Aerospace programme, as it affects the Warton centre of the aerospace project in my constituency. More than 350 members of the design team work in Warton. I can confidently say that no more brilliant design team has ever been put together.
Over the next ten years the P110 project is likely to employ about 40,000 to 50,000 skilled workers. If the project goes ahead it will provide opportunities for about 6,000 university graduates who will not have that opportunity if the P110 fails. The project will give about 2,500 apprentices the opportunity to enter the aerospace industry which will be denied to them if it fails. We fervently hope that the project will not fail but I must tell my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who are involved in the matter that there is deep disquiet in places such as Warton and Samlesbury in my constituency and in Preston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) where there is another section of the aerospace industry.
Only today I was in touch with the management and asked them for their latest views about the P110. They were deeply concerned about whether the Government would go ahead with the P110, whether they would be indifferent or whether they would put an end to the project. I spoke to trade union members who are working at Warton, from whom I received the same reaction. It is imperative and, indeed, there is no alternative to having a statement from the Government. We should like that statement today to tell us that the P110 has their support, is the subject of their faith—the type of faith that has been

expressed by the seven aerospace companies and has been shown in Germany and in Italy, which are likely to provide about £30 million in addition to the £25 million that has already come from private industry in Britain.
We need to know whether the RAF has made up its mind about its future needs. At the moment we are in limbo. If the development of the P110 is slowed down because of uncertainty over whether the Government will support it, the consequences will be massive lay-offs—40,000 to 50,000 skilled workers will lose their jobs—plant closures, the disintegration of a design team of incomparable quality—there will be no chance of recovering it—and the loss of opportunities for 6,000 university graduates and 2,500 apprentices.
The House has been reminded of the recent speech by the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Michael Beetham, but it has not been told that Sir Michael appeared to be coming round to the view that the P110 could be used by the RAF. That is the sort of view that we want to hear, but we want it to be expressed more firmly than it has so far been expressed. We want the Government to say that the RAF will take the P110 as the fighter for the future and that the machine will be bought for the RAF. If the Government do not say that, the development will die.
We are years ahead of everyone else, and we have a brilliant machine which could be a world-beater. At present, as a trade unionist told me this morning, the P110, which should be one of the outstanding developments of the century, is being drip-fed with drops of finance here and there.
We need two things. First, we need the Government to reply as soon as possible to the letter from the chairman of British Aerospace and to say that we will have the P110 as our fighter for the future. Secondly, as an interim measure, we need money to keep the development continuing at its present pace. It will not continue at that pace unless it gets extra finance from the Government. I hope that we shall have satisfactory answers tonight to both those questions.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have asked us to be brief, I shall not take up the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner).
I am proud to represent a city which has long associations with the RAF. I am certain that the sight of Lincoln cathedral on the return home after long bombing raids over the Continent warmed the hearts of many of the men in Bomber Command during the last war. We in Lincoln are still proud of our RAF connections. Many RAF families live in the city, and Waddington, from which Vulcan bombers have operated so successfully and for so long, and which will soon be the home of the modern Nimrods, is on the edge of the city.
I start by paying tribute to the RAF for the way that it contributes to local communities. The men and women of the RAF are excellent citizens. They try to make contact with the local population and they open their bases to schools and citizens generally.
The RAF families in our villages and in the city contribute to community life in a variety of ways. The RAF provides much-needed employment, and many families stay in the vicinity after leaving the RAF and use the skills learnt during their service for the continuing benefit of the locality. For example, a man who has just


left the RAF, and is skilled in electronics, is setting up a school in Lincoln to train youngsters in information technology. That is an excellent use of the skills that he learnt in many years of excellent training and service in the RAF.
Any community that has an RAF presence is lucky, and that is certainly true of Lincoln and Lincolnshire. I pay tribute to the community spirit of the RAF.
Of course, a local presence is only a by-product of the essential role of the RAF, which is the defence of the realm and of our interests, wherever they are threatened. Recent events have proved conclusively the crucial nature of control of the air in any operation.
There are three specific areas that I should like the Government to consider. First, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stressed earlier, we must retain our technical lead in the quality of our equipment. We live in a world of high technology and our excellence is crucial if we are to deter the much larger number of aircraft deployed against us by the Warsaw Pact. NATO has only 1,250 fixed-wing tactical aircraft, but the Warsaw Pact has 2,700—more than twice as many. Only excellence can narrow that gap, just as the excellence of the Harrier jump jet helped to restore some of the balance in the South Atlantic against a numerically superior Argentine air force.
I understand that in the 1950s and 1960s we were in danger of losing that excellence by concentrating on the belief that the nuclear deterrent was all-important. We allowed our conventional forces to suffer. We have rightly reverted to the idea of the flexible response, which demands the best conventional forces.
I am glad that we are engaged in the biggest re-equipment of the RAF since the war. In 1978, a total of £1,200 million was spent on RAF equipment, which was 16 per cent. of the total defence budget. This year, we shall spend £2,800 million, which is 20 per cent. of the total budget. That is a substantial increase, both in real terms and as a share of the defence budget. Progress is in the right direction, but we must make certain that the RAF does not relax its pursuit of excellence.
The second issue is our ability to improvise. The Falklands crisis showed the importance of our genius in this respect. The Vulcan bomber, which came from Waddington, improvised and got to Port Stanley to bomb the airport. Our refuelling techniques, to which we hastily added, enabled Harriers to fly to Ascension Island on the way to reinforce our ships and provide air cover in the South Atlantic. We improvised to convert merchant ships for use with the Navy. There are many other examples of how our ability to improvise helped our Forces.
Improvisation stretches the effectiveness of our Forces far beyond what most of us imagine they are capable of doing. Improvisation arises from the spur of crisis. The ability to improvise is an admirable British quality. Will the Government give greater consideration to other ways of improvisation? For example, Vulcans are now to be used as refuelling tankers. Perhaps civilian aircraft could be built with slight adaptations to enable them to be converted to a refuelling role in a crisis.
I am glad, for example, that our 72 Hawk trainers are to be modified to take the Sidewinder missile. In all these cases, a flexible approach can increase our strength out of all proportion to cost. I do not want to institutionalise improvisation, because that could snuff out the genius, but we should prepare for and think much more about it.
The third issue is training. This issue was raised more forcefully and eloquently than I could ever do by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). During the Falkland crisis many of us became acutely aware of the precious skills of our pilots. These human skills are among the scarcest of our resources in the Armed Forces. Have we sufficient trained manpower for a longer conflict? Are we satisfied that the training to give our Armed Forces that high degree of skill is adequate? I do not have the knowledge to judge, but it is a matter that we should examine vigorously.
I ask the Government to sustain and improve the excellence of our equipment. I urge them to nurture our ability to improvise. I hope that they will ensure that we have sufficient skilled men for a longer crisis than the Falkland operation.
I am glad to take part in this debate, not only because the RAF is close to the heart of the city of Lincoln, which I have the honour to represent, but because I believe that the Government recognise the crucial importance of the RAF.

Sir Philip Goodhart: In recent days there have been many emotional reunions as the men of the task force have returned from the Falklands. They have deserved our cheers. Eloquent tributes were paid to them by the Minister in opening the debate and by all hon. Members who have spoken.
This afternoon I should like to pay a brief tribute to a group who played a vital role in the campaign, but who, for the most part, will be staying at their posts. I refer to the men who kept the air base at Ascension Island functioning throughout the campaign. I do not say that it would have been impossible to mount the campaign in the South Atlantic without the facilities on Ascension Island, but clearly it would have been much more difficult for us if those facilities did not exist.
It is perhaps understandable that attention should have been diverted from Ascension Island. On the whole, bases are not glamorous. The facilities there were largely provided and, to an extent, maintained by Americans, but, because of the sensitivity of relations with their Latin American neighbours, the Reagan Adminstration were never anxious to draw attention to the significant role that the Americans played. However, we should put on record our gratitude for the work that they did.
I suppose that in some ways it was an accident that we retained rights on Ascension Island. For years, we have been casually disposing of base sites around the world. In recent years, we abandoned Gan, although there was no local pressure to do so, and we abandoned Masirah in similar circumstances.
The Falkland Islands conflict has reminded us of the value of land bases. It is plain that the efficiency and safety of both the surface and submarine fleets are much enhanced if they can be supported by long-range aircraft which cannot possibly be based on carriers.
We shall have to provide major facilities on the Falkland Islands. As on Ascension Island, I hope that we can eventually share those facilities with the Americans. We must have a runway with the ability to maintain a force of Phantoms or Tornados to protect the Falkland Islands. However, in the long run, it is the Americans who have an infinitely greater interest than we do in the safety of the passage round Cape Horn.
At the moment the Americans are naturally inhibited from asking for and receiving a base site in the Falklands because of the fear of offending Latin American susceptibilities. However, if and when our dispute with Argentina is resolved, or fades into the middle distance, that inhibition will be removed.
Meanwhile, apart from reminding us of the paramount importance of bases or land-based aircraft, the conflict in the Falkland Islands has also driven home the message that the bombs and missiles that an aircraft carries are almost as important as the plane and its pilot's skill.
The pilots of the Argentine Air Force deserved the praise that has been heaped upon them in Britain for the skill, courage and determination with which they pressed home their attacks upon our task force. If they had been equipped with correctly fused bombs and had had more and better missiles, the impact of their assault would have been far more deadly.
As I watched the films of the Argentine planes skimming low over the water—films which eventually made their way back to Britain—I occasionally thought of the Tornado. Apart from the Falklands campaign, the arrival of the Tornado is the event of the year for the Royal Air Force, as my hon. Friend reminded us in his opening speech. It makes an immense impact on our strike capability, just as it makes an immense impact on the prospects for the Royal Air Force.
What will the Tornados carry? My hon. Friend referred to the superb characteristics of the plane. What about the superb characteristics of the missiles and bombs that it will have to carry in the next few years?
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend referred to the new Pershing defence missile and the new anti-tank weapon with which the RAF will be equipped towards the end of this decade. I am sure that in debates to come we shall be spending an increasing amount of time talking about the missiles as well as the planes of the Royal Air Force.
One other lesson from the Falkland Islands campaign that need not wait for detailed analysis of the combat is the crucial importance of helicopters. In his opening speech on the defence Estimates, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that we could never have too many helicopters. The Minister, in his opening speech this afternoon, expressed exactly the same sentiments. I am sure that neither has ever spoken truer words. If we stick to our present plans, we are never likely to have too many helicopters; indeed, it is arguable whether we shall have enough.
In the past two years there have been significant increases in the strength of our helicopters. The Lynx is a magnificent machine. The TOW anti-tank missile with which it is equipped is also a highly effective weapon. The Lynx is largely flown by the Army Air Corps, which this weekend is celebrating its twenty-fifth birthday, and which performed magnificently in the Falkland Islands. But one wonders whether the demarcation dispute between the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps over who flies which helicopter has inhibited the development of helicopter strength.
I hope that the aerial lessons of the Falklands campaign will lead to the early development of the EH101—the replacement for the Sea King helicopter. I hope also that new thought will be given to the need for an attack

helicopter. One knows that the presence of attack helicopters in the Soviet arsenal has had a profound impact on the thinking of the Army and of the Royal Air Force, yet we have not ventured into that area. After the Falklands campaign, I wonder whether we should be thinking again on the subject—but that is for the future. Meanwhile, we must be thankful that the superb training that the pilots received has borne the test of conflict in the Falklands, and that the Royal Air Force has behaved as magnificently this year as it ever has in its history.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Obviously, I shall introduce a slightly different aspect to the debate. Of necessity, debates of this sort begin with a reference to the Falklands. The Falklands campaign showed that there was bravery on each side, and it has been recognised tonight. I would argue, and have argued consistently, that those who were involved should not have been put in that position in the first place. Having said that, it is clear that the people involved were very brave in facing the possibility of loss of life or limb. Indeed, many people lost lives and limbs in shouldering a terrific burden and facing terror.
The Harrier proved to be a highly adaptable and versatile aircraft, but one of the more nauseating sights on television was of a British Aerospace executive smugly saying that the sales of the Harrier would be increased world-wide because it had been "Falklands-tested". I hope that the lesson of the Falklands campaign is that the arms trade should be reduced.
It is a great pity that the United Nations second special disarmament session has ended without discussing the world conference on disarmament that was a proposed item on the agenda. That failure was largely because Governments such as the United Kingdom Government undermined the efforts of that session. It could have produced a positive result in the form of an international agreement about arms sales. I hope that the "Falklands test" will not be used to sell arms to other countries, given the dubious distinction that the Government make between one regime and another, because it would be used on the backs of all those who were killed and injured in the conflict.
The RAF is expensive and, according to the Estimates, costs £2·7 billion—almost £3 billion. The Government claim that it is a nationally organised force designed to match our defence needs. I believe that the Government make their own judgments. Philosophically, it is interesting that the Government, who talk about the necessity of private enterprise in every other area, never advance the theory that the best solution would be privatisation of the RAF. I raised the matter earlier when the Government were sounding forth about the need to privatise everything within sight, but no Minister suggested that the RAF should go to Laker, who at that time was their hero, pin-up boy and successful entrepreneur.
We must organise nationally in order to provide the most effective force. What is true for our national defence is also true for much of our manufacturing industry to maximise its effectiveness in international competition. Countries such as Japan have learned that lesson well.
The Government vastly overplay their hand and say that we must have a strong RAF because of the huge threat with which we are confronted. In such debates, I always try to


demolish the myth that the Government and NATO perpetuate so assiduously. We need not the RAF's present nuclear capacity but a Royal Air Force that matches our defence needs. The threat that the Government claim exists is vastly overestimated. For example, on page 25 of the statement on defence Estimates—the only page dealing with arms control and security—it says:
The Warsaw Pact has a substantial advantage over NATO in almost every respect.
Patently, that highly debatable and controversial claim is made baldly and without any qualification.
I have a pamphlet issued in America by SANE, the American anti-nuclear weapons organisation. The pamphlet quotes, for example, from the Department of Defence annual report 1982:
while the era of US superiority is long past, parity—not US inferiority—has replaced it, and the United States and the Soviet Union are roughly equal in strategic nuclear power.
One would never get that impression from the defence Blue Book. The pamphlet also quotes Senator Proxmire, who said on 26 August 1980:
It is time that the American public understands that these quotes about being outspent by the USSR are just plain inaccurate. They are nonsense, balderdash, phoney, fake and I might add, untrue.
The senator is clearly emphasising that the notion that we are vainly trying to catch up with the massive spending of the Soviet Union is not borne out by the facts. Our needs are grossly exaggerated, so that the Government can make claims about the expenditure needed.
I wish to deal with the number of RAF bases that are occupied by the United States air force. I shall make a few critical comments about cruise missiles, but I must say that the United States of America has a much more open system of government than Britain. Some of the information that we receive, for example, from investigating journalists, comes not from Britain but from America. It is intolerable that there should be so much secrecy in a democracy. One of our supposed strengths is that we are a democratic country, yet the secrecy and the blocks that stand in the way of Members of Parliament who want information are an intolerable disgrace.
I have asked about the number of bases. If the United Kingdom is to become a fixed aircraft carrier for American military nuclear weaponry, we should know about it. On 18 June 1980 I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
If he will list the total number of bases operated in whole or in part by the United States forces in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 18 June 1980, Vol. 986, c. 587.]
One would have thought that that was a comprehensive question requiring a comprehensive answer. The Secretary of State replied with a list of 12 bases. I asked further questions and each time I gleaned information about more bases. I reached a total of 50 bases, but the Stockholm international peace research institute claims a total of 100.
British citizens have a right to know the extent of American operations in Britain, because if the Government go ahead with their lunatic notion of installing cruise missiles, our citizens will be placed in jeopardy. If a nuclear conflict develops, the presence of American F111s at Lakenheath and elsewhere, loaded with nuclear weapons, will place Britain in jeopardy, yet the Government will not disclose to elected Members of Parliament the extent of the American presence. It is a considerable negation of democracy.
The Government are also coy about where the money goes. Page 12 of the defence Estimates contains an extraordinary item. It lists other support functions to the

Army, Navy and Air Force and "local administration communications" in the United Kingdom. The Minister must enlighten the House about local administration communications. Those functions cost £903 million and employ about 20,000 personnel. I wonder whether they include Menwith Hill, the communications base on the moors above Harrogate.
I have asked questions about the authority of the bases, including Menwith Hill, and on 10 December 1980 I asked the Secretary of State for Defence to
list the treaties, agreements, memorandum, letters, minutes or any other documents which have been exchanged or submitted by either the United Kingdom or the United States Governments providing the terms under which United States forces are stationed in the United Kingdom; how many of these documents have been presented to Parliament; and how many have been placed in the Library".
One would not have believed that to be an unreasonable request in a democracy.
The answer listed some treaties and concluded:
No central record of such material is held, and the research which would have to be undertaken to assemble one would entail disproportionate effort and cost."—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 680–1.]
I do not believe that. In a Department that spends almost £15 billion a year, there is a massive credibility gap around Ministers who fob off Members of Parliament with such deceit. I am convinced that a central record exists and that Ministers know die answers. My guess is that the central record is rather dog-eared and that the authority for some of the bases is so tatty that the Department does not wish it brought out into the light of day.
Menwith Hill may come under the aegis of the RAF. No one is sure about the shady operations, but the citizenry has a right to know. In an article in the New Statesman on 18 July 1980, Duncan Campbell and Linda Melvern said:
The Menwith Hill base covers 562 closely-guarded acres of the Yorkshire Moors, festooned with a remarkable array of satellite-tracking aerials. Its business for more than fifteen years has been sifting the communications of private citizens, corporations and governments for information of political or economic value to the US intelligence community, and since the early 1960s its close partner in an operation of ever-growing technical sophistication has been the British Post Office".
Has it indeed? Is there a massive cable link between Menwith Hill and Hunters Stones tower owned by the Post Office some five miles away? The answer is "Yes". Are there 800 people working on the base? That does seem to be the case. What does the base do? It seems to be concerned with interception.
If it is simply a European communications centre for United States forces in Europe, it makes the area a prime target in any nuclear war. No part of the country will be free from devastation and holocaust because of the link to microwave towers scattered throughout the United Kingdom. If what is claimed in the article is true, citizens have a right to know whether the nationalised Post Office has been co-operating with a foreign power, albeit a friendly foreign power, in allowing the interception of signals related to telephonic communications in this country.
The United States base is one of those that will have to close down and go. This does not mean that we shall put the American people at a distance. I was present at a march of a million Americans outside the United Nations building at the beginning of the second special disarmament session when trade unionists, Church representatives and people with no religious or political


affiliation marched for a nuclear freeze and against nuclear expenditure. Their claims were identical to those made in this country.
Parts of New York are devastated. On the subway, armed police have to accompany each train. The JFK express out to the airport has to be accompanied by armed guards. The deprivation and crumbling nature of New York is plain for all to see. Yet the American Government are spending billions of pounds on escalating the nuclear arms race. This Government are also playing their part.
Our social and educational services face cuts. Ministers stress how local authorities must cut areas that are crucial to the existence of many people. Local authorities are even having to seek ways to maintain meals on wheels—a basic service—at their present level. At the same time, the Government propose to increase defence expenditure. They propose to endanger the nation by accepting cruise missiles in our country, presumably on Greenham Common and Molesworth RAF bases.
I pay tribute to the women, together with their supporters, who have set up the peace camps. In their belief and mine, cruise represents a dangerous escalation. No one has been able to answer the point I have put in the House that cruise is under American control. The United Kingdom Government have no right of veto. All talk of consultation is governed by the 1951 agreement between Attlee and Truman and that vague and ambivalent phrase,
in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time".
That does not give any right of veto. There are two keys for the operation of cruise. Both are held in American hands. Because cruise is non-detectable it cannot be verified. The Prime Minister, when she talks about disarmament, which is not often, refers to the need for verification. That is right, but cruise missiles are not verifiable.
What about approaching the Russians and talking about means of verification, and reducing the level? Representatives of the Russian mission at the United Nations said that they would accept any verification that was involved in a treaty agreement. What about taking that up and starting real negotiations?
The theatre nuclear talks that are going on do not involve our Government. Our nuclear weapons do not give us a place at the negotiating table. We are not there, so Aneurin Bevan's notion that we cannot go naked into the negotiating chamber is not valid. That is another reason to brush aside the notion that nuclear weapons are essential. They are not. They endanger us.
By being involved in nuclear alliances and by accepting cruise, we place our nation in danger. Because cruise missiles fly below radar, if one were used the Russians might have to resort to a retaliatory launch on warning, as cruise is not clearly detectable on a radar screen.
Opposition to cruise will grow and I hope that it does so successfully, and that we follow the people of Holland and West Germany who are raising loud and clear opposition to the stationing of cruise missiles. We cannot continue with the escalation of nuclear missiles in our country without, at some stage, either by accident or design, one of them going off into the awful conflagration that we all so desperately and earnestly wish to avoid.
We need an RAF to match the needs of the country, but that does not involve a nuclear element, missiles or United States bases, either operational or in the form of the Big Ears on Europe in our country.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am not sure when the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) had his conversion on disarmament and arms sales on the road to Damascus, but I know that he was a member of a Government who sold arms throughout the world, including Argentina, and he did not leave that Government because of those arms sales. By the same token, I ask him to ponder the thought that perhaps peace and disarmament are not necessarily indivisible.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on one narrow aspect of the Royal Air Force. I do so in the context of this week and the concern that all of us in the House and throughout the nation have felt over the security of the Queen and the royal family in the light of the break-in at Buckingham Palace. I think that we all hold the view that the Queen's safety is a matter of the highest priority, wherever she is, and in whatever form of transport she travels, whether by road, on the sea or in the air.
This week, our thoughts have focused on what happened at Buckingham Palace. Tonight, for a few moments, we should turn our attention to the Queen's safety in terms of the aircraft of the Queen's Flight. I remind the House that the Queen's Flight is handled and serviced by the RAF. It includes three Andover aircraft and two Wessex helicopters. The Andovers, two of which have been in service for 18 years and one for 17 years, are military versions of the HS748 passenger aircraft in its series II form. The aircraft is twin-engined with a top speed of about 250 miles an hour. It has a baggage door at the tail, and it is about this that I wish to make some remarks.
The HS748 entered service in 1962 and, since then, the earlier versions of the aircraft have been plagued with problems relating to the baggage door. In all, the aircraft has had no fewer than 37 incidents involving the rear door. In those incidents, it is said that no fewer than 13 of the doors have become detached from the aircraft in flight. One of the most recent of the serious incidents involving the HS748 occurred in June 1981 when an aircraft belonging to Danair crashed at Nailstone in Leicestershire killing the three people on board, but only two months ago a similar aircraft crashed in the Philippines.
I must immediately declare an interest, for I am the deputy chairman of the air safety group. Last month I went to the headquarters of the air accident investigation branch at RAE Farnborough and saw for myself the fuselage of the Danair aircraft that had crashed in Leicestershire. I was shown the baggage door and the locking systems which malfunctioned to allow the door to fall off the aircraft. As the door fell, it wrapped itself round the tail of the aircraft, and that caused the crash in which three people died.
I was shown how the door locks had failed and why the door had therefore come away from the aircraft. The air accident investigation branch told me that the door that I was looking at had been modified by British Aerospace, the manufacturers of the HS748, after the first of the incidents to which I have referred.
It was also explained to me that the three Andovers of the Queen's Flight had the self-same door with the selfsame modifications which had failed last year in Leicestershire and two months ago in the Philippines.
I was nothing short of horrified to receive this information. I was even more horrified to hear that British Airways apparently had so little confidence in the modifications introduced by British Aerospace to this faulty door that it had introduced modifications of its own.
The implication seems to me to be quite clear. It is that the Andover aircraft used by the royal family are not as safe as the HS748s used by British Airways. I remind the House that last year the royal family used the Andovers on no fewer than 182 occasions and that, apart from their use by the royal family, the aircraft are constantly in use by Ministers.
Having seen the crashed fuselage of the Danair HS748, I find myself wondering why the Queen's Flight Andovers do not now have their baggage doors modified further to rule out the possibility, however remote, of one of those doors coming off with tragic consequences.
So far, I have resisted the temptation to suggest that it is time that the Queen's Flight was re-equipped, for, as I have told the House already, it is flying three aircraft, all of which are approaching 20 years in service and none of which could be described as modern, fast or particularly up-to-date. Many of us would say that the time had come for such a prestigious flight as the Queen's Flight to have much more modern equipment, perhaps Hawker Siddeley 125s or even the new Jetstreams. I also suggest that the two Wessex helicopters, each of which is 13 years old and unable to fly when certain icing conditions are present, should be replaced by modern machines with all-weather capabilities.
If I am to be told, as I understand those who have raised this subject in another place have been, that financial restraints make the possibility of re-equipping the Queen's Flight improbable at present, I am convinced by what I saw at Farnborough—which my hon. Friend can see for himself if he wishes—that further modifications to the rear doors of the Andovers of the Queen's Flight should be carried out as a matter of urgency. One door failed two months ago. British Airways do not accept the British Aerospace modification. It has clearly proved to be defective. British Airways fly with the slogan:
We take good care of you.
If taking good care of somebody means introducing the modifications that British Airways have introduced, surely the same safety standards available to British Airways' passengers should be available to the Queen, the Prime Minister and members of the Government who travel in those aircraft.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, answering questions about security at Buckingham Palace, said that it was the Government's duty to see
that the protection we give to the Queen and members of her family is the best that can be provided, always remembering that the safety of the sovereign must be paramount."—[Official Report, 21 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 403]
I share that view.

9 pm

Mr. Robert Atkins: I do not wish to detain the House long. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) would have thought long and carefully before speaking in the way that

he did, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in reply to the serious points that were raised. I want to pose some questions and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers. There has been much talk about the part played by the Royal Air Force in the Falklands conflict. We shall know the full story in the autumn.
The Farnborough air show will take place in about a month. It is the greatest and best air show in the world. It is the shop window for British aviation and British Aerospace. It means a great deal to those companies when the show takes place at Farnborough every two years. Representatives of a number of companies have said—there are two in particular that I do not wish to name although I shall tell the Minister privately—that the story of the success of the weapons systems and aircraft and so on that participated in the Falklands conflict should be told at Farnborough. The comment was made, "Do you think that the French would not do that if they were in a similar position?" I leave that point with the Minister
I know that a presentation of the problems faced in the Falklands conflict and their solution will be made available to hon. Members. I believe that that presentation should be made available to schools, rotary clubs, civic societies and other people in the same way as the Navy and Royal Air Force make their "Know your Navy" and "Know your RAF" presentations available. People will then see what men and machines did in the interests of liberty and democracy.
Perhaps I could repeat a question, and ask why the Ministry of Defence still charges for the use of the aeroplanes at Farnborough for demonstration purposes. I understand the reason for charging for insurance, but the Ministry of Defence levies an enormous amount of money from the industry, and it does not seem to be helpful to continue charging for the use of those aeroplanes.
The Minister talked about air-to-air refuelling and the need for more. Many of us agree with that. However, he made no mention of something that my colleagues and I have raised before—the possibility of flexible tank; in civil airliners. Boeing made a presentation to some of the Minister's colleagues fairly recently and understandably pointed out that it makes 50 per cent. or more of the airliners used by British companies. It demonstrated, at least to my satisfaction, that it could incorporate either at source, or by way of retrofit, flexible tanking facilities so that civil airliners could be converted to meet the need that has been demonstrated in the South Atlantic.
The Minister referred to the Chinooks that were lost when the "Atlantic Conveyor" went down. He said that replacements would be ordered. When will they be ordered? Can he confirm that the Treasury, not the Ministry of Defence, will pay for them? I see my hon. Friend nodding, so I think that I have the answer to that second question. What will happen to the Vulcan force? Some of my hon. Friends went to Lincolnshire before the Falkland Islands conflict to see the Vulcan force and were told that it was to be scrapped. Will he confirm that that is no longer the case and elaborate on what will happen to the Vulcans on their return from the South Atlantic?
The success of the Harrier has been demonstrated in the South Atlantic. I understand from sources in British Aerospace that several things are required. Mention is made of a better airborne early-warning facility, bigger


drop tanks and some improvement of the auto-pilot. Mention has also been made of a pulse doppler radar. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that later.
I turn to the Harriers' future, air staff target 410 and the various projects in the pipeline relating to plenum chamber burning and supersonic STOVL defined under projects 112 and 12–16. What progress is being made and has my hon. Friend any idea of the time scale involved? I have raised some of my points before, but they bear repeating. I refer first to the paramount urgency of some sort of commitment to the RB199–67R engine that is required for the air defence version of the Tornado and for the P110, or ACA, as it is now called. A radar suppression weapon is also vital to the Tornado, because without it it is particularly vulnerable.
Mention has been made of the P164 and my hon. Friend will probably comment on it in detail. However, I hope that he will touch on the cost of rewinging the Jet Provost and the ensuing running costs compared with its replacement by an aircraft such as the P164. I support recommendation XXXI in the Select Committee's report, which was published today. Many hon. Members may not have read it yet and I have only had a chance to read the recommendations. However, recommendation XXXI refers to the need—supported by the Society of British Aerospace Companies—for a ministerial aerospace board, derived from a combination of the Department of Industry and the Ministry of Defence. That is extremely important for the future of aerospace in Britain.
Hon. Members will not expect me to sit down without referring to the P110, which is so important to my constituency and to the constituences of many of my hon. Friends. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) is in the Chamber and I am grateful for the support that he has given me and several other Lancashire Members—not ignoring my colleagues from north of the border and other parts of the country—in pressing for that aircraft. Indeed, I shall not forget that Minister, who always likes to be reminded that his constituency is adjacent to that containing British Aerospace. The project is vital. Like me, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) speaks for his constituency. He knows how important that aircraft is for jobs. The House knows of my determination and that of the British Aerospace work force, designers, trade unions and management to have that aeroplane. I spelt out the details of what is required fairly recently, and the Minister and those who understand the needs of the RAF will be familiar with them.
For strategic and industrial reasons we must have that aeroplane. Since 1976, when I became the prospective candidate for Preston, North, I have been told by British Aerospace and others how important AST403 was and how vital it was for a decision to be made. I was told the same about the P110, as it became and about the ACA, as it then became—that it was vital and that urgent decisions must be made. I was told exactly the same about the agile combat aircraft, as it now is; it is still vital and we still need an urgent decision. I know that the Minister recognises that. I hope that he will take account of what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is an important project, welcomed by the Chief of the Air Staff.
This is an aeroplane which fits the needs of the RAF in the future. We must have it. Even if it means an increase in the defence budget of 1 per cent., 2 per cent. or whatever, we should have it.
I hope that the Minister will give some satisfactory answers.

Mr. Bill Walker: I apologise for being absent for much of the debate. The House will gather from the way that I am dressed that I have been taking part in activities elsewhere. I have been taking advantage of one of our privileges. I have been taking my daughters to the Palace. I regard that as one of the great privileges of being a Member of the House.
Ministers are well aware of my long interest and involvement in the Royal Air Force. I intend to adopt a different approach to the defence of the airspace round the United Kingdom. Hon. Members have rightly concentrated on the need for the RAF to be equipped with another generation of air defence weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) always deals efficiently with constituency problems.
I have no doubt that when the air defence version of the Tornado is operational, the RAF will have the finest weapons system of its type in the world. When that weapons system is properly and fully equipped, it will be second to none, but I doubt whether we have enough aircraft. I am confident that we can cope effectively with enemy aircraft from Soviet land bases over the north-east and central front in Europe. I am confident that we have the necessary men and equipment.
I have been worried for a long time about Soviet aircraft penetrating over Denmark at low level and making their way down the Channel to the south-east coast of England. That area is the soft underbelly of our air defences.
I am worried on two counts. The bulk of the taxpayers live there and I am sure that they would be worried if they realised how difficult it would be for the RAF to defend them against such an attack with the number of aircraft available. I am also worried that ships in the Channel are vulnerable to similar attacks. Above all, that is the reason why we should be considering the P110. It is there and it is an option. We shall certainly require an aircraft of that type to carry out saturation duties for air superiority requirements. We shall never be able to do that with the limited number of Tornados available.
For many years, I have been worried about the lack of reserves in the flying divisions of the RAF. I am delighted that at long last we are to have an auxiliary unit flying again and that it will fly helicopters. An auxiliary unit can do that job effectively and well. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the long and distinguished record of the auxiliary squadrons. It is vital that the new squadron is given one of the old numbers.
The Government should seriously consider augmenting the auxiliary component of our forces by having pilots who are flying Hawks and Jet Provosts and their replacements putting in sufficient operational hours monthly to keep them up to a standard of competence where they could quickly covert to fast jets. The above average pilots will convert quickly. We shall never have sufficient reserves, whatever the circumstances. Pilots are more valuable than aircraft. The Argentine saturation attacks on our fleet resulted in uncontemplated pilot losses. We could not have replaced that many pilots had we lost them.
We must consider carefully the revenue cost of the Jet Provost replacement. One problem has been the revenue cost of maintaining the Royal Air Force training machine at the necessary standard with a regular number of hours to get trainee pilots through in the right time scale. It is expensive. In the past we have not paid sufficient attention to the revenue costs. Towards the end of the decade, even on the normal ratio of the losses sustained over the period, we shall have to replace the Jet Provost. Whether or not we have a refurbishing programme, it will have to be replaced. We should go for an aircraft that is relatively inexpensive to operate.
I am delighted that the RAF again will be equipped with an aircraft to deal effectively with submarines, as during the war years. The Royal Air Force has a proud record. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is not here. He is an ex-Royal Flying Corps man, and it did a wonderful job in anti-submarine warfare. Combined with the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force will do the job effectively using Nimrods. I am pleased that the airborne early warning Nimrod is coming into service soon.
I am the guardian angel in the House of the air cadets. The air cadets have many hard-working and unpaid volunteers. In particular, the volunteer gliding schools depend on the services of instructors who do not get paid for their weekend duties. Many have given their services for long years, some more than 30. It is an unusual individual who can convince his wife that he should be away every weekend teaching cadets to fly. The instructors get only out-of-pocket expenses for transport. I hope that there will be no further cuts in the expenses given to the instructors. These people take young boys into the air for the first time. Many of our fast jet pilots were blooded in gliders of the air cadet movement. They gain early experience and an interest in aviation that leads them to join the RAF.
I compliment the members of the Royal Air Force who did a wonderful job in the Falklands operation. But however important its role was in the Falklands, we must remember that the RAF's key role is the air defence of the United Kingdom and our surrounding sea lanes. That is where our priorities must always lie.

Mr. McNamara: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate about the role of the Royal Air Force and the tasks facing Britain. We have had a vocal and loud lobby for British Aerospace and the P110. I shall return to that later in my remarks.
What was of interest and great service to the House—perhaps we should have had more discussion of it today, but that would be a little optimistic because it was published only today—was the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the organisation and procurement policies of the Ministry of Defence. It will prove to be one of the more important documents to have come from that Select Committee. In particular, it was interesting to note how my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) made use of the report. It is significant if one examines the argument and debate that has taken place about the development of the P110 and the P164. The report, in recommendation 31, states:

In order to achieve closer high level co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Industry, we recommend that the case for appointing a Ministerial Aerospace Board be re-examined as a matter of urgency.
That is important. Paragraph 123 of the report is also worth reading. It states:
We consider that collaboration between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Industry is not as close as it should be. In 1971 the Rayner Report recommended the setting up of a Ministerial Aerospace Board, consisting of the two Ministers or their representatives, to oversee the collaboration between the two Departments and to be the authority for any instructions and policy guidance on aerospace matters to be given to the Procurement Executive.
The report goes on to explain why that board was never appointed and recommends that it should be appointed. Our discussion today has been a background of concern both for the defence of the country with the P110 and for the future of the industry, for job opportunities, for regional policies—all contained in what one would want to have in the sponsoring work of the two main Departments involved: the Department of Industry and the Ministry of Defence.
When one talks to people about the role of the industry in producing the aircraft that are needed, there is often a distancing between the Department of Industry and the Ministry of Defence over those matters. Each looks to the other Department to be the one that pushes rather than their working together. On occasions, because there will be a conflict between industrial and military interests, the work that should be carried on between the Departments is not always there. That has been highlighted in the report of the Select Committee and has been illustrated today in the background to the discussion on the P110.
We have heard a number of spirited recollections about the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—indeed, all the Scottish Members on the Conservative Benches—referred to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire welcomed the fact that it might have helicopters attached to it. When the Secretary of State opened a debate earlier in the year, he suggested that no decision had been taken. Will the Minister, when he replies, tell the House which squadrons are involved and give the number of helicopters that will be available? The Royal Auxiliary Air Force will welcome that development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) mentioned the problems associated with stretching the lives of some planes, and he spoke nostalgically about his training in the RAF and the planes available to the RAF in 1939. Our treatment of the Phantoms, the fact that we have ageing Canberras and the return of the Vulcans to a conventional role show that we are cheeseparing and extending the lives of some of our aircraft because of the Ministry of Defence's wrong-headed policy towards Trident and our nuclear capability. That cannot be to the advantage of the RAF or the defence of the country. We must look carefully at the problems involved in extending the lives of planes. For example, we do not know how they will be affected by metal fatigue.
I enjoyed the passionate plea made by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) on behalf of the P110. I was amazed that in his tour de force he brought in a comment by a trade unionist to support his case. From the hon. and learned Gentleman that was surely


a desperate plea. I welcome his conversion and look forward to his voting with us against the Employment Bill when it comes back from another place.
The House is showing a level of concern about the P110 that I cannot remember it showing over any other project. I was not here when the TSR2 was cancelled, although I remember the furore that that decision caused, and I cannot think of another project that has caught the imagination of hon. Members in the way that the P110 has done. That is a credit to the constituency and defence interests shown by hon. Members and to the way that British Aerospace has been able to identify with hon. Members on both sides, as independent companies have been unable to do in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made a number of telling points about the way in which nuclear expenditure was affecting our defence policy. The Opposition contend that Trident and a replacement for Polaris have distorted the conventional role of our Armed Forces. That view is quite apart from any moral arguments about the role of nuclear weapons and an independent deterrent. We passionately believe that the Trident decision has distorted many policy options available to our conventional forces.
For example, the time when expenditure would be required for the P110 is exactly the time when there will be a burst of spending on Trident. That is just one example of how Trident distorts policies, just as it distorts the hunter-killer submarine programme.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said about the safety of the Andovers of the Queen's Flight. If people are travelling on planes that are not safe, whether planes of the Queen's Flight or any other planes, we must be concerned. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to satisfy us that the hon. Gentleman's fears are, if not a figment of his imagination, at least without foundation. If there is cause for concern, we must be told what action is to be taken; and if there is no cause for concern, we should have our fears allayed.
Finally, I come back to the subject of the P164 and take up what was said by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire. If we have a trainer, it should be relatively cheap to run, easy to service and capable of being used and sold abroad. I have had the advantage of seeing the mockup of the fuselage, the configuration of the aircraft, and so on. It seems to me that in ease of serviceability, cost, and the type of engine that is being used, British Aerospace may have an aircraft, complementary to the Hawk, which is as cheap and as good a winner both for the company and for the Royal Air Force as the one that went before.
The interest and concern that have been shown in the Services throughout the debates that we have had over the past month have been kindled by what we have heard about them in the Falkland Islands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, whether one feels that they should not have been sent or whether one feels that the Government blundered in having to send them there, once they were there they acquitted themselves well.
We in this House have a duty, when we send forces to fight for us, to ensure that they have the best conditions, weapons and protection. Now they are in the Falklands, and they are to be garrisoned there. We read letters in the

press describing the living conditions of the troops on the islands. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy the House that the troops are as comfortable as is reasonably possible, and that some of the stories that we have heard are exaggerated. Now that they have won back the Falklands, I hope that they can garrison the islands in relative comfort, despite the difficulties that must arise when a large community suddenly descends in this way, and when so much was lost on the "Atlantic Conveyor".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): Many of the things that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said in opening the debate point to one development that must please us all, and that is the high morale in the Royal Air Force. That is evident to me when I visit Royal Air Force stations—and I had a happy visit to RAF Brawdy only the day before yesterday. It was clear in the confident and efficient part played by the RAF in the Falklands conflict. Here, of course, I join in all the complimentary remarks that have been made on that subject. I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), and we shall certainly give thought to his suggestions. More objectively, it is obvious in the substantial decline in the outflow of trained personnel.
The reasons for the confidence of the RAF in the future of the Service are equally clear. The RAF knows that it has a Government who believe in strong defence, are implementing a far-reaching re-equipment programme, and who respect the Service men who are to man it. The Service has a sense of real purpose. I have no doubt that the promise which the Government fulfilled as soon as they came to ofice to reintroduce and maintain pay comparability was a telling factor. Also important, but less widely commented on, has been the elimination of undermanning, which was made possible by the successful recruiting of the past three years. Up to then, personnel were increasingly overstretched in their jobs, and consequently leaving in greater numbers. It was a vicious circle, but it has now been broken.
Greater retention, in turn, means that we do not have the same intense demand for new recruits as we had before. That, combined with the slight dip in the numbers that we require, announced following last year's programme review, has enabled us to keep our intakes low—about 4,000 in 1981–82, and fewer this year. Standards of entry are high and the Service is undoubtedly attracting men and women of the quality that it needs for such an exciting, high technology force. I should add that we are finding that there are fewer failures in training, which further eases our manpower problems. My only regret is that we also have to turn down applications from many promising, bright and well-motivated young people.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) inquired about the Port Stanley airfield. Following the repossession of Port Stanley by British troops we need to reconstruct and extend the airfield. The quickest way of making a viable military airfield capable of operating air defence aircraft is to use specialised aluminium matting, for which the only source is the United States. Therefore, we made arrangements to procure a quantity of that matting and some has already


arrived at Port Stanley. As soon as it had been unloaded from the ships, the reconstruction of the airfield can begin. That will be carried out by the Royal Engineers.
The exact make-up of the Falklands garrison is still under consideration. Therefore, it would be premature to comment upon that and the possible consequences for our deployments elsewhere. It is anticipated that a matting-covered runway, sufficient to operate some aircraft, will be in service at Port Stanley in August. It will be progressively extended to accept larger aircraft in due course.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and, passionately, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), and almost every other hon. Member who spoke, mentioned the P110. They stressed the importance of that aeroplane and the prospects that it held out for the British aerospace industry and the employment opportunities that it can offer in the future.
Hon. Members pressed for an early response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the proposals that were put to him recently by British Aerospace. However, if hon. Members read carefully in Hansard tomorrow what my hon. Friend said in his opening speech about the P110 they will be left in no doubt that the points that they have made are already fully taken. They will also see why we must put a great deal of care into considering the proposals that were put to my right hon. Friend only the other day. Therefore, there is nothing more that I can usefully add to the subject tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central raised the subject of the British Aerospace P164 project. We are aware of that private venture design and wish it every success. One hon. Member raised it in the context of its replacing the Jet Provost. However, I am bound to point out that we have no plans to replace the Royal Air Force's substantial Jet Provost fleet for many years.
In a well-informed and technical speech in which he raised several matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) repeated the comments that Britain takes longer to develop its aircraft than do, for example, the Americans or the French. I draw his attention to page 364 of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Defence that came out this morning. The controller of aircraft was asked about that very matter.
In a somewhat lengthy commentary, which I shall not read to the House now, he pointed out that the Tornado took approximately six years, the F15 seven years, the F16 six years and the G8 Marcel Dassault 12 years.

Mr. Warren: rose—

Mr. Wiggin: I would rather not give way to my hon. Friend on the technicalities. It is all here in the evidence, which I am sure he will have studied.

Mr. Warren: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to study the evidence that I gave, which was approved by the British Aerospace Corporation as being clear proof that demonstrator programmes could be achieved and that my figures were correct? I am always willing to correspond with the controller of aircraft.

Mr. Wiggin: The point that I am trying to make is that the controller of aircraft is satisfied that we at least tackle projects on a similar time scale. To suggest that we are always slower and worse is not particularly beneficial to the argument that we were having.
My hon. Friend also discussed at some length the reasonable point that the Services, as the ultimate user, should be more substantially represented in the Procurement Executive. To say that is to blur the clear distinction established by Sir Derek Rayner, in his 1971 proposals for setting up the Procurement Executive, between the respective functions of the Services which specify the military requirement and the procurement experts who satisfy it. Those are distinct functions calling for distinct skills and expertise. There are about 2,000 uniformed staff in the Procurement Executive whose contribution is highly valued, but they are there by virtue of their expertise in procurement, which they have acquired during their careers. The Fisher report did not call into question the distinction between the two basic funcions, although it rightly stressed the need for close cooperation and understanding between the two groups.
My hon. Friend also argued that the work carried out in the Ministry of Defence research and defence establishments would be more appropriately undertaken by industry. He will be aware that that general question was addressed by Lord Strathcona 18 months ago, and a copy of his report is available in the Library of the House. The noble Lord identified a number of areas of work as appropriate for transfer, and we are actively engaged in planning how that might be achieved. Gas turbines and rocket motors are two substantial examples of developments that lend themselves to that treatment, and they are included in our planning. However, he also concluded that other areas of research and development work—including, notably, basic research and acceptance testing—were appropriate to Government and likely to remain so. I take my hon. Friend's point but it cannot be applied indiscriminately.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) with his substantial knowledge arising from his post as Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force—one that I have never held—referred to several matters. I shall, if he will permit me, seek to write to him about the more technical matters that he mentioned. He inquired about the current number of air defence aircraft. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), said:
The number of aircraft available for the defence of the United Kingdom is greater that in 1979, and the capability of those aircraft has been enhanced."—[Official Report, 23 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 730.]
The hon. Gentleman also asked about missile stocks. He will recall from Cmnd. 8288, paragraph 12, that stocks of modern air-to-air missiles are to be more than doubled, and surface-to-air missile cover improved. As my right hon. Friend made clear some weeks ago, we shall be replacing all the missiles and other equipment lost or consumed in operations in the South Atlantic.
The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fortieth anniversary of the Royal Air Force Regiment, which was celebrated recently in a very fine parade attended by Her Majesty. The regiment does an exceptionally good job, which is being substantially enhanced by the equipment that it is currently receiving.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly drew attention to the help and co-operation and—dare I use the word?—behaviour of the United States Air Force in Britain. It goes to a great deal of trouble to see that its airmen are properly organised. They look after themselves, they deal with the local community, and contribute a great deal in economic terms, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said recently.
The question of rapid runway repair development is receiving a great deal of attention, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that when my right hon. Friend announced the enhancement of the TA at the beginning of March, he said that we are to expand the airfield repair capacity by forming Royal Engineers TA squadrons with special responsibility for that work. The hon. Gentleman also asked about NBC protection for the Royal Air Force. That is proceeding along the current programme.
My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), Dumfries and others spoke of the importance of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The House is aware of the importance that the Government place on the use of reserve forces. Of course, the Royal Air Force is a complex organisation, needing men and women with a high and sustained level of training. The use of reserves is, perhaps, more restricted than in the Navy or Army. Even so, we are making significant advances. During his statement on 3 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the creation of three more Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons. I am pleased to announce that, in addition, another reserve unit, this time a movements squadron, is to be formed shortly.
I know of the close interest that many hon. Members have in the possibility of a flying reserve and my Department has studied the subject carefully on several occasions. Modern fast-jet pilots must have a sustained level of training and of operational readiness that reservists just could not maintain. Moreover, sufficient back-up is available from regular pilots with recent flying experience, serving in the support area of the Royal Air Force.
However, a flying role for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force may be possible in providing helicopter support for the Territorial Army. We are examining what scope there may be for that if naval Wessex aircraft can be transferred to the Royal Air Force. Clearly, helicopter establishments must be examined in the light of the Falklands experience. As the matter is under study, I shall not whet the appetites of my hon. Friends by proceeding further down that road. Of course, the Secretary of State's original statement holds good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries mentioned accommodation and welfare for personnel on the Falkland Islands. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today, although about 500 people remain in tents, the full range of special clothing and bedding is available and facilities exist to cook three hot meals a day.
I was disturbed to read reports of poor conditions suffered by 63 Squadron of the Royal Air Force Regiment earlier this week, but I was pleased to read confirmation later that that was ill-founded. An RAF Service man at Port Stanley airfield was quoted in The Guardian yesterday as saying
If you haven't got anything, it's basic laziness that you haven't bothered to go and get it".

We have now sent out large quantities of prefabricated hutted accommodation. A batch of 333 accommodation units is on board MV "Myrmidon" which arrives in Port Stanley today. They will provide accommodation and other facilities for about 3,000 men. That said, of course, our Forces continue to have a difficult and arduous job in atrocious weather conditions. We intend to give them every possible assistance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries also mentioned an important point about loyalty to the squadron. I am certain that his remarks will ring a bell with the Air Force Board, and my hon. Friend and I will take up that important point.
I have dealt with the living conditions mentioned by my hon. Friend but he also talked about low flying, and because of the substantial interest in the subject I shall devote some time to it. Obviously the operations of any air force are of some inconvenience to members of the public. We greatly regret that and do all that we can to minimise their impact on the local community and also to ensure safety. I repeat that low flying is a crucial part of our deterrence posture. The best way to deter enemy action is to leave the enemy in no doubt that one has the ability to strike back rapidly and effectively. In an air war, that would involve the use of low-level tactics to enable aircraft to fly under the enemy's radar to escape detection. Such tactics demand great professional expertise and continual practice. The necessary skills can be learned neither in simulators nor in flying over the sea, which does not provide relevant navigation experience, while opportunities for training abroad are limited.
In last year's debate my hon. Friend said that such training was
an insurance for peace and a means of ensuring that, should we fail in … maintaining peace, our young men can do their job and face no more risk than they absolutely have to."—[Official Report, 23 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 216.]
RAF Harrier operations in the Falklands have shown the value of that rigorous training, in that, in about 150 sorties, only three aircraft were lost to enemy ground fire. I trust that those who are regrettably inconvenienced will see it as a small premium to pay to safeguard the lives of our young and gallant pilots.
I appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who understood both the role of defence industries and the role of defence in protecting the nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), gave a rather philosophical dissertation, based on the RAF's role in his constituency and in the county of Lincolnshire. I entirely endorse his remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) mentioned Ascension Island, which was a crucial staging post and which we have continued to run intensively. Ascension Island was the hub of our air operational activity and more than 800 RAF officers and men were based there. Aircraft movements at Ascension Island peaked at 400 a day when the task force was moving through. By comparison, the average movements at Heathrow are about 750 a day. My hon. Friend was right to say that perhaps the men on Ascension Island are less well remembered. I welcome the opportunity to give them credit for a fine job well done. It would have been a different operation, if it had been one at all, without Ascension Island and the work done there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham also mentioned the undoubted advantages of having large air bases round the world. All of us share that view, but the fact that we must pay for them decides the disposition. My hon. Friend also spoke about helicopters and, as the largest employer in my constituency is Westland Aircraft, I share his interest in promoting those machines. My hon. Friend mentioned the EH-101—the new anti-submarine warfare helicopter—that we plan to develop in collaboration with Italy for entry into service towards the end of the decade. Although heavier than the Sea King, which it will replace in Royal Naval service, it will, by virtue of its much greater agility, be capable of operating from small ships, including the new type 23 towed array frigate. It will carry a highly sophisticated avionic suite which, together with Sting Ray torpedos, make it a formidable ASW weapon.
Commercial versions of the helicopter are also planned, for which a substantial market is foreseen by Westland and Agusta. By proceeding with an integrated Naval commercial programme, significant benefits should accrue to both defence and industry. Joint programme definition has been successfully completed and we are now discussing the way ahead with the Italian Government and with industry. We hope that the development will be launched early next year.
The response to a wide range of operational requests by one of Europe's top three helicopter manufacturers, Westland Helicopters, during the Falkland Islands conflict was excellent both as to speed and the technical solution of our requirements. It imposed exceptional demands on the staff, involving weekend and holiday working. I congratulate them on what they did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) cast gloom over the safety of some aircraft. I assure him that the aircraft of the Queen's Flight are maintained to the highest possible standards. The Royal Air Force has extensive experience of Andover aircraft. Since entering service in 1964, such aircraft have flown more than 150,000 hours and there have been no major accidents to mark 2 aircraft. A minor accident involving a cabin door occurred in 1971 when, on take-off, the rear door opened into the air flow. It was concluded that the door had not been properly closed by the crew. Since the accident to Dan Air HS748 on 26 June 1981, the RAF has reviewed its air crew and engineering procedures and made minor amendments. In addition, minor modifications to the door mechanism are in hand.
The safety record of the Royal Air Force's Andovers is already very high. They are maintained to exceptionally high standards and further minor matters that we have put in hand reinforce our confidence in the safety of these aircraft.
I am delighted once again—and it is never too often—to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force's search and rescue organisation. I am not referring simply to the familiar yellow helicopters but also to the mountain rescue teams and even marine craft. Last year, the helicopters were scrambled 800 times rescuing or aiding over 600 civilians, 43 Service men and, to complete the picture, five dogs. The mountain rescue teams and marine craft responded to over 100 call-outs. This year looks like being little different.
By the end of May, 310 helicopter scrambles had been made, to assist 325 people. Some rescues are extensively reported in the media. Most pass almost unnoticed. We describe two rescues in the White Paper. Other examples are the winching to safety of four seamen at night and in fog after a collision between two coasters and the rescue of eight tankermen from their vessel as it sank in a force 11 storm. Last year, the bravery of the search and rescue crews was marked by the award of two George Medals, one, unhappily, posthumously. I am sure that the whole House joins me in extending thanks to the crews for their difficult and arduous work and the brave manner in which they carry it out.
During the recent manhunt for Barry Prudom in Yorkshire, helicopters from Royal Air Force Leconfield provided many hours of assistance to police forces involved, both in the aerial search role and as a means of rapid transportation. In addition, a specialised Puma helicopter with sophisticated surveillance devices was made available to assist in the search.
The Royal Air Force's contribution to the well-being of the civil community is not limited to search and rescue but encompasses a wide range of other activities, some of which one would not automatically associate with the Royal Air Force. For example, during the bad weather last winter, the Royal Air Force supplied transport resources for meals on wheels, delivered animal feed, carried out flood relief work and provided emergency ambulance cover. In my constituency, during a disastrous night just before Christmas, when the Bristol Channel overflowed sea defences, personnel of the local Royal Air Force station turned out in the middle of the night and worked without a break in terrible conditions to help my constituents and the constituents of neighbouring hon. Members.
Even less well known, perhaps, is the work of the Royal Air Force bomb disposal team which worked in the Falklands. After withstanding aerial bombardment in San Carlos Bay and helping to defuse a number of unexploded bombs, the team went ashore and disposed of 17 tons of napalm at Goose Green. After the fall of Port Stanley, the team contributed to a rapid return to normal conditions by dealing with booby traps and other ordnance and by clearing the runway and adjacent areas of Port Stanley airport to allow aircraft to land with essential supplies and personnel for the Falklands community.
The House should be in no doubt about the high value of the Royal Air Force's contribution to the Falklands operation. It performed the vital and incredibly arduous tasks of transporting men and materials on long flights to Ascension and to the task force. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Durnfries in commending the incredible endurance shown on some of these flights. The discomfort and the endurance required were remarkable.
The House will be aware of the gallantry of the RAF Harrier pilots in combat over the Falklands, the air defence activities of the RAF Regiment, the Nimrod patrols, the bomb disposal teams, and many more elements that add up to a vital role. This was performed by the Royal Air Force with the quiet confidence and supreme skill to which we have all become accustomed. There are dangers in becoming accustomed to tacit acceptance of a Service that consistently meets its traditionally high standards, so I am


sure that the House will not object to being reminded of this, and will join me in paying tribute to the men and women of the RAF.

Mr. Donald Thompson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Seat Belts

10 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.
About a year ago the House gave, on a free vote, its clear support to the principle that seat belts should have to be worn by law. Tonight we are not debating that principle. We are debating the draft regulations that the Government have drawn up as a result of the undertaking to put Parliament's decision into practice. Our underlying aim has been to ensure that the law is as fair and straightforward to enforce as possible. I hope that hon. Members will bear these points in mind during tonight's debate.
It is important to remind ourselves that in 1980 more than 2,000 front seat occupants of cars and light vans were killed in road accidents and some 28,500 were seriously injured. While it is not possible to estimate precisely what effect compulsory seat belt wearing will have, there is no doubt that belt wearers fare much better than nonwearers—their fatality rate is about half that of non-wearers and their chances of serious injury are similarly reduced.
I know that some hon. Members are concerned about the time that has elapsed since the powers to introduce compulsory wearing were given in the Transport Act 1981. However, I believe that it is vital, on an issue of this sort, to get things right. I am sure that the many hon. Members who wish to see compulsory seat belt wearing introduced as soon as possible will realise the importance of this if the law is not to fall into disrepute. This would only negate our efforts to save lives and prevent as many serious injuries as possible from occuring on our roads.
As set out in the preamble, in accordance with the terms of the 1981 Act we laid a statement of proposals for implementing compulsion before both Houses on 8 December 1981. This was widely circulated to interested organisations and to the public. Three months then had to elapse before the regulations could be laid, and during this time we received a number of helpful comments on the proposals. I assure the House that all the views that we received were carefully considered before the regulations were drafted.
It is not only the House that must approve the draft regulations but also the other place, where I understand that the debate will be held at the end of next week. We hope that this will mean that the regulations can come into operation in January rather than in March. This obviously will be of great importance in reducing casualties, which run at about 38 deaths a week and 548 seriously injured.
Of the draft regulations before us, regulation 1 gives the commencement date, regulations 2 and 3 are mainly technical, regulation 4 introduces the requirement to wear seat belts, regulation 5 specifies the exemptions, regulation 6 specifies the types of vehicles covered, and regulation 7 deals with the types of seat belt required.
Regulation 1 gives the commencement date as the twenty-third Monday after the regulations are made. A Monday has been chosen on the advice of the police as the most suitable day to introduce a requirement of this kind

which will affect most motorists. Although this is an unusually long period, it has not been made without good cause. Once the regulations have been made we must allow time for the printing and distribution of the forms for medical exemption certificates to doctors. During this time we will begin our publicity, advising people in leaflets about the new law and how to obtain medical exemption if necessary. There must then be time for people to apply to their doctors. As the House may know, we are taking powers in the Transport Bill now before another place to enable us to provide examinations for certain people who are on low incomes or disabled. The plan is to provide these through the DHSS, and hon. Members will, I am sure, appreciate that we must allow sufficient time for these applications to be made and for doctors to consider them.
Regulations 2 and 3 are mainly technical provisions containing the citation and definition of terms used in the regulations. However, I must draw attention to regulation 3(2), which is designed to pick up future amendments to the existing legislation to which the regulations refer. I do so because I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments described regulation 3(2) as making
an unusual use of the powers of the enabling legislation.
The sole reason for this arrangement is that regulation 3(2) ensures that regulations will be automatically aligned with minor changes in the relevant legislation so that they do not become incomplete or otherwise defective. The most important link is with the Construction and Use Regulations which deal with the compulsory fitting of seat belts. But I stress that, given the background to the emotive issue of compulsory seat belt wearing, with the many attempts over the last decade to approve specific powers, the Government consider that it would be utterly improper for any Government to bring in a substantial change to the wearing requirement by means of this link.
Regulation 4 contains the requirement to wear a seat belt when driving a vehicle or when riding either in the specified passenger seat, which is normally the front nearside passenger seat, or in the middle front seat if the specified passenger seat is not occupied.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the effect of regulation 3 is that an instrument passed by the negative procedure could alter this instrument, which is an affirmative instrument? Would not that be an unusual procedure?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said, it would be utterly improper for any Government to behave in that way. The only point of proceeding in the manner that I have described is so that when there is a minor change in the Construction and Use Regulations, which govern the fitting of seat belts and anchorages for seat belts, these regulations should not become defective. But obviously the change to any amending regulations would also be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Regulation 5 lists the categories of exemption. Not surprisingly, this is the question which arouses the most concern. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have tried to make the law as fair and as enforceable as possible. We therefore only included categories of exemption which seemed very compelling while being consistent with our aim to keep them to a minimum.
Regulations 5(a), (b) and (d) set out those categories already given in the 1981 Act, namely, users of vehicles constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods while on


local rounds; drivers carrying out a manoeuvre which includes reversing; and holders of medical exemption certificates.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Plus £19.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's intervention in a moment.
As indicated in my right hon. Friend's statement of proposals, we have extended the first category on local delivery rounds to those on local rounds of collection, for, as I am sure the House will agree, it would be nonsense to exempt one and not the other. Indeed, in many instances, such as laundry rounds, the same person is both collecting and delivering.
We have also extended the second category—vehicles while reversing—to include in regulation 5(c) drivers supervising learners so that they can properly carry out their responsibility and check the road behind their vehicles. This was at the request of the National Joint Council of Approved Driving Instructor Organisations.
As indicated in our statement of proposals, regulations 5(e), (f) and (g) exempt the emergency services, but only in the specific and limited circumstances where this is necessary. They have not been given, nor indeed have they sought, carte blanche. If necessary, they will have to justify to a court their decision not to wear a belt as indeed they already have to, if, when they use their discretion under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to ignore traffic sign directions, an accident occurs.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that police officers may take to court driving examiners or those who are instructing drivers because they are not wearing seat belts at any stage of their teaching? Does my hon. Friend think that that law is even remotely enforceable without causing enormous anger between the police and the public?

Mrs. Chalker: I have not yet come to the point that my hon. and learned Friend raises. I am certain that the police will use their common sense. When my hon. and learned Friend intervened, I was talking about the operation of the emergency services and the fact that drivers of emergency vehicles sometimes have to jump a red light to get to the aid of citizens. In the event of a collision they are sometimes asked to justify that action. We shall not be departing from that procedure. It is unlikely that they will ever have to justify such a procedure except perhaps in the case of insurance claims. The provision must therefore sensibly be made to stay in line with the present law.
Following the consultation period, it became clear that there were other cases where exemptions were justifiable. The representatives of the taxi drivers and private hire car drivers made the case that their members were particularly vulnerable to attack when going about their work and that they could be made more vulnerable by having to wear a seat belt. I accept that, sadly, that is a valid argument. I have therefore allowed an exemption for taxi drivers when plying for hire or carrying a passenger, and for private hire car drivers when carrying a passenger. That is set out in regulation 5(h). Bearing in mind the need for enforceable legislation, only vehicles displaying the relevant licence plates will fall within the scope of that exemption.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Can it be made clear that front seat passengers in car hire vehicles must wear seat belts?

Mrs. Chalker: That is right. Front seat passengers of car hire vehicles must wear a belt. They are covered by the generality of the regulation. They are not covered by the exemptions under regulation 5(h). I have also looked again at the question of drivers accompanying learner drivers, which was the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). We decided that there could be a danger to driving examiners, driving test candidates and indeed to other people if examiners had to wear their belts at all times. That is because driving examiners must not intervene in a test until the last possible moment, so that the candidate has had every chance to correct a fault or to deal with a problem himself. Once the examiner has intervened the candidate has failed.
We have therefore provided a limited exemption in regulation 5(i) and, like the emergency services, examiners may have to defend their decision in court. However, we have not found it possible to extend that exemption to driving instructors and others accompanying learner drivers, as they are required by law to supervise the learners so that they do not cause danger to other road users. Indeed, the national joint council did not seek exemption, and one of the council's founder members, the British School of Motoring, requires its instructors and pupils to wear their belts.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British School of Motoring is not a driving school in the sense of directly employing driving instructors, but a car hire firm, which, like Kentucky Fried Chicken, franchises out to sub-contractors? Is she further aware that there has been no consultation between the BSM and most of those sub-contracting driving instructors?

Mrs. Chalker: I should answer those questions at the end of the debate, because otherwise other hon. Members will not be able to intervene.

Mr. George Robertson: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton represents the driving examiners organisation, which is an independent body with about 500 members. I have sought to discover the wider experience of other driving examiners. I have found out that the BSM not only advises but states that anyone who fails to comply with the directive to wear a seat belt and to get the learner to wear one will run the risk of being dismissed. Just as other organisations have told us, the BSM has told many people that it is entirely right to wear and to encourage the wearing of a seat belt.
Regulation 5(j) provides an exemption when a belt cannot be used either because it is defective or because—if it is of the inertia reel type—the mechanism has temporarly locked because the vehicle is, or has been, on a steep incline. It does not by any means provide a loophole in the regulations for the minority who do not wish to wear seat belts. It would be unreasonable to require someone, especially a passenger, to wear a seat belt when it is defective and cannot be worn.
It will still be an offence to drive a vehicle with defective belts, but we shall amend the Construction and Use Regulations so that a person cannot be prosecuted for


having a defective belt if it has only become faulty on that journey, or if steps have already been taken to have the fault rectified.
The second part of the exemption applies only for that short time at the start of a journey on a hill when the belt cannot be unreeled. However, the exemption applies only until such time as the vehicle has moved and the belt is once again free to unreel, when it must be put on. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a sensible approach for a circumstance that occasionally arises.
In regulation 5(k) we have proposed a limited exemption for motor mechanics. On occasions we appreciate that mechanics may need to carry out adjustments or diagnoses as front seat passengers. Wearing a seat belt could prevent that, as the work might involve lying on the floor of the car, under the dashboard, as the car is driven along. [Interruption.] However, so that the exemption can be enforced, it will apply only when a vehicle is being used with trade plates. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will not be lying on the floor as they move along, trying to kid me that they are carrying out adjustments.
Obviously, I realise that some people will be disappointed that additional suggestions for exemption have not been accepted. As I have said before, it is important that exemption should be kept to the minimum if the law is to be enforceable.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Where is the exemption for the Armed Forces? If my hon. Friend had been outside the House at 10.30 this morning she would have seen three armoured cars parked in Bridge Street whose occupants, as usual, had to have their heads and half their bodies out of the top. Where is there an exemption for members of the Armed Forces who cannot possibly wear seat belts in their vehicles?

Mrs. Chalker: I believe that I am right to say—although I shall check—that if Armed Forces vehicles, such as emergency vehicles, are on specialised duties, they are covered by the emergency provisions that I have described. However, I shall, by leave of the House, return to that point at the end of the debate, because it is a detailed matter.

Sir Walter Clegg: rose——

Mr. Tim Renton: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I want the law to be effective. I know that there are strong feelings about it. Indeed, I would not expect otherwise after the numerous debates on this issue. I want to ensure that we successfully introduce the measure for which Parliament has voted.
Regulation 6 lists the vehicles in which seat belts must be worn.

Mr. Renton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Chalker: I have been speaking already for 19 minutes and I must get on.
Broadly, the vehicles listed in regulation 6 are those in which belts are already compulsorily fitted—that is, cars registered since 1 January 1965, light vans registered since 1 April 1967 and three-wheelers first used on or after 1 September 1980. However, seat belts must also be worn if they are fitted to various classes of vehicles which are outside the requirement to fit belts. These include, for example, foreign visitors. Regulation 7 simply describes the type of seat belt which must be worn.
I have concentrated on exemptions, as they should be the main focus of attention. I shall sit down now because many hon. Members will want to ask questions about the regulations and shall seek to answer them. I believe that the regulations are the best way of implementing Parliament's clearly stated wishes in favour of compulsory seat belt wearing and, accordingly, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: I speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box as an individual and not as the official spokesman for my party. This issue does not follow traditional party lines. It must be decided by the House of Commons as a whole. For those of us who have been striving to secure the compulsory wearing of seat belts, the wheels of democracy appear to have been grinding frustratingly slowly. Tonight we are nearer than at any time in history to achieving what has been overwhelmingly the view of the House ever since the subject was first debated. That we are debating the regulations tonight, albeit one year on from when the principle was first established, is in no small part due to the personal commitment of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. Her determination and commitment to bringing the issue to a speedy fruition deserves the thanks of all who share her view.
Before the passage of the Transport Act 1981, eight attempts were made, dating back to 1973, to introduce compulsion in the wearing of seat belts. If one reads the debates, as I have done regularly, one can see that hon. Members on both sides of the House have adduced evidence to support compulsion from the most reputable sources—the Patronage Secretary take note. I make no apology for repeating the evidence that has led me and the overwhelming body of opinion in the House to support the compulsory use of seat belts.
I have been influenced by the people who have to deal first hand at the sharp end with the problem—members of the medical profession. They have to deal with the broken bodies that are the regrettable result of automobile accidents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The time for debate is short. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the regulations and not again debate the principle.

Mr. Stott: I fully appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely stating why the vast majority of lion. Members reached this conclusion. It would not go amiss to restate the reasons for the record.
The vast majority of medical opinion is in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I shall not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in going through the formidable list of the others who support the principle.
Most of the time of orthopaedic surgeons is spent in dealing with road accidents. They should be allowed to do their proper job of performing essential hip operations.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the hon. Gentleman's remarks relevant to the discussion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the regulations.

Mr. Stott: In no way do I wish to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of the House. I am endeavouring to support the regulations. I wish to restate for the record the necessity for them.
Whether we are debating the principle or the regulations, the House has a responsibility to the taxpayer, who pays millions of pounds to a National Health Service that has to perform operations on people injured in road traffic accidents. The regulations are to prevent such injuries. The House has a duty to face its responsibility. We cannot dismiss the arguments in debating the regulations. As long as I remain in order, I make no excuse for putting them forward.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has frequently stated that the regulations are not necessary. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may tonight pray in aid academic evidence submitted by Dr. Adams in his occasional paper. The last time that we debated the principle I was disingenuous in dealing with Dr. Adams. I apologise to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) said in the debate that in a democracy we should allow people like Dr. Adams to tilt at windmills. But I do not believe that Dr. Adams's view is sensible. He has not reached his conclusions for the right reasons. Under the leadership of Dr. Mary McKay an exercise undertaken by the University of Birmingham has produced arguments that conclusively rebut what Dr. Adams advances.
If Sir Ronald Bell had been here today, he would have used arguments against the regulations to suggest that they are an infringement of individual liberty. He used such arguments on many occasions. Those who object to the regulations have a right to do so, but I do not believe that the regulations are an infringement of personal liberty. They are sensible regulations that go a long way to meeting a criterion that has long been advanced by many people in Britain—the saving of lives. If the House can do anything to save lives, it should do so and issues such as this should be treated seriously. The regulations will save lives.
We do not have many opportunities in the House to enact legislation that will, on all the available evidence, demonstrably and conclusively save lives and reduce severe injuries. That being the case, the minor infringement of personal liberty, if there is any infringement, is worth it if it ensures that the regulations are accepted by the House. I hope that, if the House decides to divide, those Members of Parliament who have fought for this issue since 1973 will join the Under-Secretary and me in the Lobby to enshrine in legislation the compulsory wearing of seat belts, because it is a good piece of legislation.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: We are limited to a discussion of the regulations tonight; we are not discussing the Act. The regulations are the means of implementing section 27 of the Transport Act 1981. One is therefore entitled to say that it is sad that the House should be approving the regulations because it is sad that we should be implementing section 27 of the Act. Section 27 carries the limits of the criminal law beyond the point that they should be carried.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) said that the imposition of the wearing of seat belts was a minimal interference with the freedom of the individual.

Although I happily wear a seat belt and encourage others in cars to wear them, so long as there are people who genuinely believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are safer when they are not wearing seat belts, I believe that they should have that freedom of choice and that the criminal law should not attempt to impose their wearing on them. We know of people who have been involved in accidents—perhaps a minority of accidents—who have been saved by the fact that they were not wearing seat belts. While there are people who have such feelings, there should be freedom of choice.

Mr. Toby Jessel: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot give way because I know that my hon. Friend disagrees with me. I accept that the argument is over and that those of us who take that view have unfortunately failed to persuade the House.
Therefore, I turn to the regulations. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I believe that the regulations are slightly nonsensical. I wish her to answer certain questions about them.
It is extraordinary that regulations should come into operation on the twenty-third Monday after they are made. We are told that that is suitable because the police believe that the first working day of a week is the best day to commence regulations, but why commence them on 13 December 1982? Why not introduce the regulations on 1 January 1983? That would be clearer for people. [Interruption.] I am trying to show the absurdity of some of the regulations.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not doing very well.

Mr. Carlisle: I have not started yet.
It is intended to exempt those who are doing local deliveries, but only if they use
a vehicle constructed or adapted for the delivery … of goods or mail".
The postman carrying post in a Royal Mail vehicle will not have to wear a seat belt, but the local newsagent in my village, who delivers newspapers door to door in his own car, will have to wear a seat belt. It is a nonsensical difference between two people doing a similar job.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman prefer to have no exemptions to the wearing of seat belts?

Mr. Carlisle: No. I should prefer to have no law on this issue. The decision should be left to individuals. However, since there are to be exemptions, I ask why we should exempt the driver of a vehicle that is adapted for local deliveries, but not exempt someone who uses his own car for the same purpose. It is an absurd difference.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a barrister. If he looks carefully at the regulations, he will find that door-to-door deliveries are covered. Both the examples that he has given will be covered.

Mr. Carlisle: Exemption will be allowed only to the driver of a vehicle that is constructed or adapted for local deliveries. A person who drives his own car for that purpose will not be exempted.
The regulations also refer to exempting those who are
driving the vehicle whilst performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing".


What does that mean? What is "a manoeuvre"? I understand that it is a plan or strategem that includes motion. If I get into my car for the purpose of parking it, I am presumably
performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing".
But if I get into my car in Cheshire, with the intention of parking it in London—without stopping on the way—am I throughout my journey from Cheshire
performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing"?
If so, am I entitled to exemption? I should be glad to know. One day the regulations will have to be discussed and considered by the courts. What is "a manoeuvre"? When does it start? When does it end?
What is the difference between the driver of a private hire vehicle, who will not have to wear a seat belt, and a chauffeur on a permanent basis of employment, who will have to wear a seat belt?

Mr. Jessel: The driver of a private hire vehicle is more likely to be attacked.

Mr. Carlisle: I am told that the driver of a private hire vehicle does not have to wear a seat belt because he is likely to be attacked. I can think of many drivers of private hire vehicles who are as safe from attack as any other driver.
The point is that once exemptions are allowed there will be serious legal arguments over their interpretation. In my opinion, it would have been better never to have had these regulations—nor, indeed, section 27 of the Transport Act 1981. I hope that my hon. Friend will think again, and not introduce new regulations which come into operation on the twenty-third Monday after they are made, but regulations that come into operation on the twenty-third year after they are made.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Has the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) finished his speech?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be extremely brief. I want to refer to the instrument. As the Minister said, we are dealing not with the principle but with the regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is appointed by the House to examine instruments for legal flaws, ambiguities and unusual use of powers, and so on, has examined this instrument and drawn the House's attention to the instrument because it feels that there is an unusual use of powers.
I do not wish to argue about the instrument, but it is important to draw attention to this matter, because, although many of my hon. Friends are extremely enthusiastic about the principle, they should remember that the effect of the instrument would invoke their strong hostility if, for example, the same method were invoked to extend the Employment Bill and regulations made under that legislation which they do not support.
The Committee asked the Department for comments. We had legal advice, too. We decided to report on the basis that regulation 3, which the Minister described as technical, allows existing other regulations to amend this regulation, as is the normal practice, following the

introduction of the interpretation Act 1978, and also allows future subordinate legislation to amend this instrument. We say in our report:
A formula which provides that references in the Regulations to other enactments cover future amendments to those enactments requires Parliament, in cases where the instrument in which the formula is contained is an affirmative one, to sign a blank cheque".
There is another aspect. Although we are dealing with an affirmative instrument here, the nature of the instrument and the relationship that allows alterations introduced by other instruments to alter this one, allows instruments by the negative procedure to alter an affirmative one. That is important, because the affirmative procedure is invoked when matters are of particular concern or controversy to the House. We know full well that the negative procedure is more honoured in the breach than otherwise. Many instruments go through the House on the negative procedure without so much as a prayer being laid, and it is regarded as a somewhat unsatisfactory procedure. Even when a prayer is laid, time has to be given for the debate, and normally time is not given, unless and until the main Opposition party puts down a prayer. In other words, by a procedure which is very much a back-door procedure, this instrument, which is treated as important and controversial by the House through an affirmative procedure, can be altered.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: As a member of the Committee, I can say that the hon. Gentleman's points are valid. Will he ram home the point that, by a change in the reference in subordinate legislation, there might be a technical change but there might also be a substantive change? That is the point.

Mr. Cryer: The instrument refers to the Construction and Use Regulations as showing the classes of persons subject to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. If the Construction and Use Regulations are altered by negative procedure, the whole class of persons that are subject to that compulsion will thereby be altered.
The Minister said that it would be utterly improper to alter the regulations by that method—by, say, altering a negative annulment procedure regulation or by introducing a negative procedure. We are dealing with the instrument as we find it now. While the Minister may say that it would be utterly improper, the fact is that powers are there. Ministers are not permanent; they change. Although a comment may be invoked m debate, Ministers' words do not form legislation—primary legislation and instruments do.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The Committee has obviously given great attention to the matter. The hon. Gentleman just said that a change in the Construction and Use Regulations could alter the category of people covered by the regulations. Will he explain how?

Mr. Cryer: Yes. The categories of persons driving a motor vehicle who require seat belts are stipulated in the Construction and Use Regulations. If the right hon. Gentleman looks through the instrument he will find that that is the case. Therefore, if the Construction and Use Regulations alter the classes of vehicles, the amendment would automatically be picked up by virtue of paragraph 3(2) of the regulations. That is the basis of the Committee's concern. I draw this important matter to the attention of the House.
We asked the Committee for an example of such a similar procedure. It was unable to provide one, although we note that in the report it is understood that the precedent in mind was regulation 2(4) of the Goods Vehicles (Operators' Licences) Regulations 1977. However, that provision appears to cover only existing amendments.
The Committee wants to draw the attention of the House to this matter. It is not concerned with the merits of the legislation. The Committee was appointed by the House to deal with the application of the legislation and that it has done.

Mr. Toby Jessel: At long last the House has the opportunity to decide on these regulations, which will, when put into effect, save about 14 lives per week or about 700 per year; and each year prevent about 10,000 serious injuries—injuries which often result in long stays in hospital, taking up beds that could be used for other people who need orthopaedic operations and wasting the time of doctors, physiotherapists and nurses who could be caring for other patients.
If the regulations are passed, I understand that we shall save public expenditure by saving the National Health Service about £6 million a year.
The Minister said that it was essential to get the matter right, or the law would fall into disrepute. I respect that argument, but it is a matter of balance. One needs time to get it right, yet the longer it takes the more people will be killed and injured who otherwise would not be. I am not sure whether she has that balance exactly right. I am thinking particularly of the year that has passed since the House voted on the Bill on 28 July 1981.
I also have in mind the reference in regulation 1 to the regulations coming into operation
on the twenty-third Monday after these Regulations are made.
I wonder whether it has to take quite as long as five and a half months, when we consider that every week 14 people could be saved, assuming that the wearing rate will increase proportionately to the extent that it did in Australia when similar regulations were introduced there some years ago. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take another look at the timing.
I believe that the medical fee has been fixed after two and a half months' negotiation with the British Medical Association, which was partly responsible for holding up the matter for that length of time. I cannot understand why it is necessary to have a fixed fee of £19 or any other figure. I do not see why the doctors should not charge whatever they like for the medical examination.
With regard to the age of 14, does the Minister think that it makes sense to say that children aged 10, 11, 12 and 13 sitting in the front seats of cars should not have to wear seat belts? Perhaps she will look at that aspect again.
My belief is that, once the regulations have been in force for a few months, they will be accepted as widely and as normally as the public accept the regulations under the Air Navigation Order concerning the wearing of belts in aircraft. No one seems to find that objectionable. It is extraordinarily inconsistent for people who do not find that objectionable to object in principle to the regulations before us tonight.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) referred, in what I thought was a

somewhat emotive way, to bringing in the "criminal law". But what else can we do? When people commit a parking offence—another road traffic offence—that is technically a criminal offence, and they are liable to a fine; that is what brings it into the criminal law. There has to be a fine, or there would be no sanction to force people to comply with the law. The same is true of the regulations now before the House. No one thinks of someone who breaks a parking law as being a criminal type, and it is very emotive of my right hon. and learned Friend, however strongly he feels about the matter, to make great play of the word "criminal" in that emotive sense.
I hope that the regulations will be brought in, and brought in quickly.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Jessel: I see that my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to intervene. He is a very senior and respected Member of this House, but he did not give way to me and I shall not give way to him. That is the end of my speech.

Mr. George Robertson: I have spoken in most of the debates on seat belts and I declare two interests at the beginning of the debate. The first is that I am the chairman of the Seatbelt Survivors Club in Britain, and that speaks for itself. Secondly, a few months ago I was elected as the honorary president of the Approved Driving Instructors of Scotland, one of the principal driving instructors' organisations north of the border, none of whose members—I say this particularly to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—has any objection to the introduction of the mandatory use of seat belts.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has just been elected as president of the organisation to which he referred. Is he not aware that today the chairman of that organisation, Mr. Bob Campbell, has written to the president asking if he will ask in this debate for driving instructors to be exempted under the regulations?

Mr. Robertson: If such a request is on its way, it is highly unprecedented. It certainly has not been brought to my attention, and it would be completely contrary to everything that Mr. Campbell has said. It would be exceedingly surprising, and I hope that I shall not have further occasion to question the validity of what is said by the hon. and learned Member for Burton this evening.
Regulation 4 brings into operation a decision that was taken by Parliament last year on yet another free vote in the House, with yet another decisive majority. Although some of us believe that there have been delays in bringing that worthy objective into operation, we can understand why. Although our impatience is clear, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—who has been a valiant supporter of the cause for many years—said, we are willing to go along with the Government if it means that the regulations are operated and that an essential road safety measure becomes effective.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) made clear, in a grudging speech by a man well qualified in nit-picking in such regulations, the principle has been determined by Parliament and those who would use a debate on the regulations to question the principle are clearly out of order. The issue is now beyond doubt.


Any discussion this evening must be about the precise operation of the regulations and especially the exemptions proposed in it, following lengthy and detailed consultation with those who promote exemptions as well as those who have a clear interest in and long experience of the exemptions proposed.
It is important to underline what the Minister said this evening. The exemptions that she proposed, although limited, arise from the clear and decisive recommendations of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, which went into the merits of each case in authoritative detail. The outcome of those deliberations, however imperfect they may be in detail, is the consensus of people at the sharp end of the issue who believe that, whatever the merits of an exemption, the people concerned would be safer with a seat belt than with the limitations of their disability unconstrained by a seat belt.
The hon. Member for Twickenham said that those of us who travel regularly on aeroplanes have yet to see a passenger refuse, on the grounds of size, shape, pregnancy or intermittency of purpose, to wear a belt. If an aeroplane pilot should be so eccentric as to believe that he is safer without a belt and acts upon that belief, the regulations would not allow the aeroplane to take off.
Common sense has shown that seat belts are safer. Common sense has shown, through the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, a conclusive opinion of experts that the exemptions that have been proposed regularly in all the debates will not assist those on whose behalf they are advanced. Undoubtedly, this is the one measure that will save more lives than any other measure that Parliament could pass. It is long overdue. This is an historic evening and we hope for a big majority.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I believed that I must vote against the regulations because they introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts, which was against the advice of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. When the enabling Bill was passed, Mr. Alderson said that he was against the police having to enforce the regulations. He said then, and has repeated to me several times, that at night or in failing light there is a probability of a policeman believing in good faith that someone was not wearing a seat belt when he was. The opportunity for error was too great.
However, having read the regulations, I now see that it is not compulsory. According to regulation 6(b) the classes of vehicle mentioned in regulation 4 include
a vehicle which is equipped with anchorage points and seat belts".
If someone removes the seat belt, the regulation no longer applies. The vehicle is no longer equipped with seat belts and therefore—[Interruption.] I do not understand the disturbance that arises when I merely read out what is stated in the regulations.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: All you do is pay a bigger fine for doing what you say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would go round the country removing people's seat belts is one that my hon. and learned Friend should reconsider. As I read regulation 6(b), the

compulsion exists not if the vehicle was previously equipped with seat belts but only if it is now. That is an entirely reasonable provision. I share the view of the medical profession and of the police that people ought to wear seat belts and that every encouragement should be given to them to do so. I also share the Government's view that they should be compelled to do so only if the vehicle is actually equipped with seat belts at the time.
If people do not wish the vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at that time, they are committing no offence under the regulations in removing the seat belts. I am merely pointing out to the House what the measure says. If this is wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct me, in which case she will drive me into the "No" Lobby. If, however, my hon. Friend confirms that the regulations mean what they say and that compulsion arises only if the vehicle is equipped with anchorage points and seat belts and not that it was originally so equipped, we are discussing a voluntary measure that represents sensible and commendable guidance to the public. It does not involve the criminal law and the possibility or the probability of the police, in good faith, accusing someone of not wearing a belt when he is wearing it by the time the car stops, or whatever the circumstances.
The regulations have been skilfully drafted. I commend my hon. Friend for her ministerial responsibility, for taking to heart the speeches made when the parent Act was discussed and on drafting the regulations in such a way that compliance is voluntary rather than a matter of criminal law.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I shall be brief as many hon. Members still wish to speak. I approached the issue of seat belts when I came to the House three years ago as something of a pragmatist. I wished to find ways of reducing the unacceptable level of road deaths and serious casualties. It seemed to me, after studying the evidence, that one of the prime remedies—although not the only one—was through the introduction of compulsory wearing of seat belts. I wanted to see the use of seat belts increase from 30 per cent. to levels of 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have worked, organised and fought this campaign have done so in a spirit of pragmatism. We have been seeking means to accomplish an end. We feel sometimes that opponents of seat belts fail to see the end that we seek and that they have adopted the attitude that our proposals were an invasion of personal liberty that they were not prepared to tolerate.
I have great respect for the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments but, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said, when we are faced with the haemorrhaging of life, day by day and week by week, it ill-behoves a Committee of the House to regard the whole matter as though it were some technical point of a subsection here and a subsection there. It is important to realise that lives are haemorrhaging away every day that we delay this important measure.

Mr. Cryer: The House, including my hon. Friend, charges the Committee with the duty of looking at the instruments on a technical basis.

Mr. Sheerman: I wanted to put that in its proper perspective, besides the urgency with which these regulations should be put into operation.
I remember the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) when we achieved the principle of this measure, last June. He turned to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and agreed that he was one of the illiberal, ill-informed, do-gooders of which the hon. and learned Member for Burton spoke. I am also one of those.
I hope that hon. Members accept that we have passed the principle of compulsory seat belt wearing, and over the period of consultation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the detail, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has said.

Mr. Sheerman: I was illustrating the fact that that was the principle. This evening we are dealing with the measures by which we implement the seat belt legislation, and the exemptions thereby that we have allowed.
Many hon. Members might think that some of these exemptions have been liberally cast, but we are willing to go along with that, with the exemption of taxis, private hire and the rest, because in good faith we should start on that kind of footing. I commend the regulations to the House and urge the greatest possible haste because people are dying on the streets every hour.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: We are now one year on and after eight previous attempts, at the end, I hope, of a long campaign to get these regulations through.
People do not realise that if a driver does not wear a seat belt and is involved in a court case, he may find that he loses anything up to 25 per cent. of his claim by not doing so. One may say that that is the driver's own fault, and his choice.
However, there is a further and important point. I welcome the restrictive way in which the regulations are drafted. One of the greatest fallacies about this subject has been the argument about personal choice. It is nothing to do with that. The wearing of the seat belt is of great importance to the third party in an accident. If the driver wears a seat belt he has a far better chance of controlling the car. If he does not, he kills people who are blameless, not just himself, and the House should remember that.
That is my point and that is why I welcome the regulations.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I agree with the Under-Secretary's comments that it is time that the regulations went through to support what the majority of the House has been supporting for a long time. As one of her predecessors, I have had to listen for many hours to long speeches on various amendments tabled by opponents of the regulations.
I wish to comment on three of the exemptions. Regulation 5(a) is concerned with door-to-door delivery not applying to vehicles that are adapted for that purpose. Newsagents who deliver in vehicles ought to put on their seatbelts in between journeys because it is the short trip that is usually the most dangerous. The same applies to many others.
When I introduced a Bill to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory, one of the amendments suggested to me was that clergymen should be exempted when on visits to members of their congregations. When I declined to entertain such an amendment, I was advised to take guidance, though I was not told from where.
When hon. Members next go canvassing—and the sooner, the better—if they are using their cars to deliver leaflets door-to-door, I suggest that they do what I do, which is to stop my car and deliver to 10 or 20 houses on each side of the road. If they intend to drive just 100 yards I suggest that it is worth while putting on their seat belts.
As for the medical aspect of all this, I am concerned, not about limiting medical practioners to £19, but about the fee or £19 which I consider to be too much. A certificate of exemption should be provided by the applicant's own GP, who should know, without the need for a medical examination, the circumstances which would prevent that person from wearing a belt. A charge of £19 for merely signing a paper is too much, and no one should be allowed to go to any doctor for a certificate.
I am worried about the exemption for taxi drivers and hire drivers. Taxi drivers seem never to get out of their seats, and seat belt wearing for them might be a good idea. But private hire vehicles often travel long distances, and I would advise drivers as well as passengers to wear seat belts.
I am glad that we have arrived at this final stage. One advantage that the hon. Lady has over her predecessors in office is that the debate will finish at half-past eleven and there will be a vote. There have been a number of occasions when there has been no such time limit. I wish these regulations all success.

11. 12 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is true that a majority in the House voted for compulsion, but hon. Members did not vote for a ridiculous set of regulations, and that is what we have. The public listening to "Yesterday in Parliament" will think that they have tuned in to "Weekending", "Not the Nine O'clock News" or "Laugh In" if they hear a broadcast of the speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. That is not what most hon. Members feel they voted for when they agreed to compulsion.
There are a number of absurdities in these regulations, and there are two injustices. We have heard some of the absurdities. I draw attention to another one, and that is the one involved in regulation 5(k). Anyone riding in a vehicle for the purpose of remedying a mechanical fault in the vehicle is exempt if he has trade plates. I ask the House to consider how ludicrous that provision is. The only people who are allowed to drive without seats belts whilst testing whether a car is working properly are people with trade plates. I wonder what do-it-yourself mechanics, professional men without trade plates and amateurs generally will think of that provision. If they will not obey it, have we not done something peculiarly absurd in bringing the law into disrepute knowing that a large number of people simply will not buy trade plates so that they may mend their cars and not wear seat belts?
That is only one of the absurdities but, since time is short, I come immediately to the two injustices. One is to the sick. Certainly those who are on low pay and are disabled will be able to have free examinations. But there are 7 million of those. The cost is mind-boggling if they


ask for exemption certificates because of their sickness or disability. But it is not they who will be most appalled by the regulations.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawrence: I am afraid that I cannot; time is short. But it is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman is attending to what I am saying.
It is those who will not get free exemption certificates who will have to go to doctors, and the recommended charge for considering whether a certificate shall be granted, according to the BMA, is an astonishing £19.
Consider the motorist who has a bad back, a bad shoulder or a bad neck. Goodness knows, there are enough of those in our society. Consider the pregnant woman, terrified that a seat belt will cause injury to her unborn child. Consider the person who is terrified of being confined. Merely to apply to a doctor will cost £19. Some of them will not know that doctors have said that pregnancy will not be an excuse and therefore will not be a reason for exemption. Those people who have to pay £19 will be absolutely livid. I do not know whether that charge will increase the use of the regulations.
When the matter was raised in February 1980 my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was then the Minister responsible, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller):
Bearing in mind the fees that doctors charge for such examinations, the patient may be required to pay several pounds.
My hon. and learned Friend replied:
The sort of fees we are talking about"—
that is, the Government, before they were conned—
are on a very modest level—a pound or two. That is the sort of charge that will be made.
He added:
I suspect that the answer to that is yes, or certainly a fee so nominal as to be insignificant."—[Official Report; Standing Committee C, 13 February 1980; c. 182–86.]
It remains to be seen whether people think that £19 is either an insignificant charge or a nominal fee. That is the first injustice.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman intervened during my speech and asked whether I was aware that the chairman of the Association of Approved Driving Instructors of Scotland had written calling upon me to ask for exemptions for driving instructors in the debate. I called Councillor Robert Campbell, who was named by the hon. Gentleman, on the telephone—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The point of order must be to me and not a point of argument.

Mr. Robertson: I am not arguing; this is a genuine point of order. The hon. Gentleman named Councillor Robert Campbell as having written to me. Councillor Robert Campbell said that his organisation has never discussed the subject, and I shall delete his expletive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot rule on such a matter. Every hon. Member is responsible for his own speech. Before I call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to resume, may I say that the Minister would like to reply at 20 minutes past eleven.

Mr. Lawrence: If I have done the hon. Gentleman an injustice, of course I apologise. I spoke to the chairman of the National Association of Approved Driving Instructors within half an hour of coming into the Chamber. He said that within the previous five minutes he had spoken to Mr. Bob Campbell, the chairman of the organisation represented by the hon. Gentleman, and Bob Campbell had asked Mr. Griffith-Mostyn Jones to ask me to convey to the hon. Gentleman the news that his association wanted an exemption.
That brings me neatly to the second injustice in the regulations. How on earth can it be just in regulation 5(i) to exempt driving examiners when driving instructors are not exempted? What possible reason can there be for drawing that distinction? My hon. Friend the Minister says that there may be moments of danger when driving examiners would be better 'without the restriction of a seat belt, as though driving instructors, who do not have to deal with the polished examinee, but the raw recruit who cannot drive all, is not in any such moment of danger. She speaks as if driving instructors who deal not with the polished examinee but with the raw recruit who cannot drive are not in any danger. She says that the examiner must allow that moment of danger to pass before acting, otherwise he cannot test the driver's competence. But what of the driving instructor who will ask how he is to teach anyone unless the pupil is allowed an opportunity to remedy or to see the effect of his mistake before the instructor acts? It is preposterous to draw a wholly false distinction between the danger affecting a driving examiner at the end of the teaching process and the driving instructor at the beginning of that process.
The only reason why examiners and not instructors have been exempted is that the Minister is under the mistaken impression that the RAC is in favour of it. It is not. Indeed, we received a circular from the RAC saying that driving instructors should be exempted. In addition, she believes that the BSM is a driving school, although it is a car hire firm that subcontracts to driving instructors. She relies on the national joint council, which is made up of several organisations, including the RAC and BSM, and has not consulted any of its branches.
I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you want me to conclude so that the Minister may have a chance to make another witty speech. However, the regulations are shot through with injustice and absurdity and are a fatuous load of ill-thought-out and ridiculous rubbish. Moreover, the regulations are a danger to the law, because they will be held in contempt and will endanger the relationship between the police and the public. There can be few hon. Members who will not join me in the Lobby against the regulations.

Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House, I shall reply as quickly as possible to as many of the points as possible, but I shall commence with remarks made by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Select Committee has suggested that by using regulation 3(2) the Government are asking Parliament to sign a blank cheque since references in the regulations to other enactments are to them, as amended in the future.
As the Committee acknowledges, there is a close link between the wearing regulations and the Construction and Use Regulations. It could not be otherwise, because the anchorages and the belts are put in cars through the


Construction and Use Regulations. It would be nonsense to make the wearing regulations completely separate. Some technical factors sometimes occur in the amendment of Construction and Use Regulations which might indirectly affect the wearing regulations. As I have said, regulation 3(2) ensures that the wearing regulations will be automatically aligned with those minor changes in construction and use. Otherwise they would be incomplete and defective in some way, causing the House undue additional work.
I fully accept what has been said and I do not for one moment believe that it is right to do anything that extends the wearing regulations without seeking the affirmative resolution of the House. I know that I cannot bind my successors, but it is impossible for us to avoid the Construction and Use Regulations having such a serious impact on the wearing regulations. The Government have always held that compulsory wearing could be introduced only by specific and positive powers. It would certainly not be proper to introduce a substantial change through that link. However, I shall leave that point and try to deal with the other points that have been made.
I was sad to hear some of the comments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), particularly about the twenty-third Monday. That was put in the regulations for a good reason. When the regulations were laid it was not known whether it would be possible for another place to debate them before the Summer Recess. If a date had been inserted, that date would either have been so far ahead that the regulations would not have been brought into use in good time, or it would have been too close, rendering them ineffective because another place would not have had a chance to debate them.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn also spoke about exemptions for delivery rounds, as did other hon. Members. We cannot extend exemptions to ordinary saloon cars; the regulations would thereby be unenforceable. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) that people doing intermittent delivery rounds should be wearing belts in their own safety interests. We cannot extend and enforce exemptions to people driving private saloon cars.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to performing a manoeuvre. I sought Chambers dictionary because I had a sneaky suspicion that someone might think of that argument. The words are taken directly from section 33(a). Interpretation, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows better than I, is settled by the courts.
Under the construction and use regulations no person may drive a vehicle in reverse for longer than is necessary. I am sure that "necessary" means the distance which is to get into a position which could not be achieved by going in a forward direction. My right hon. and learned Friend talked about chauffeurs. I do not think that a chauffeur is likely to be attacked by his employer. On the other hand, I am sad to say that many drivers of private hire vehicles and taxis pick up customers they have never seen before who might sometime late at night interfere with the driving of the vehicle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the former chief constable of Devon and Cornwall was against the regulations. The traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police

Officers in England and Wales is fully supportive. My hon. Friend said that there was a loophole in regulation 6(b). The Construction and Use Regulations require that the cars that I described earlier must contain both anchorages and seat belts. The driver of a vehicle will be liable to a high penalty if they are not provided.
Nobody was sadder than I when the British Medical Association said that it would suggest to its doctor members a fee of £19 for a medical examination. The doctors do not need to charge that fee. A doctor may waive the fee, charge a pound or two, or charge nothing. That is why we seek to ensure that people on low incomes and the disabled are covered by the DHSS medical service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton also asked about armoured cars. They do not come into this because they are not covered by the Construction and Use Regulations for compulsory seat belt wearing. The Armed Services were consulted about the regulations and are happy with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) asked about children. Children under 14 will be covered by the children's regulations to be brought in simultaneously. He also commented on other matters, which I have covered.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was challenged about Scottish driving instructors.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: They were consulted and they sent us no specific request for exemption.

Mr. Marlow: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: Other hon. Members made a variety of points that it is impossible to answer.

Mr. Marlow: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I simply say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At this time of night, surely not! Mrs. Lynda Chalker.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to ask my hon. Friend whether she was prepared to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That certainly is not a point of order. It is an abuse.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 59.

Division No. 288]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Buck, Antony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Butler, Hon Adam


Best, Keith
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Blaker, Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carmichael, Neil


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Carter-Jones, Lewis






Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Mayhew, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, A'rie
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cope, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Crouch, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Crowther, Stan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Moate, Roger


Davidson, Arthur
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Morton, George


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Neale, Gerrard


Deakins, Eric
Neubert, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Newton, Tony


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Onslow, Cranley


Dorrell, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dubs, Alfred
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parker, John


Durant, Tony
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Dykes, Hugh
Patten, John (Oxford)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Pavitt, Laurie


Eyre, Reginald
Pawsey, James


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Penhaligon, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pitt, William Henry


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Forman, Nigel
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


George, Bruce
Rhodes James, Robert


Golding, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rifkind, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Robertson, George


Hannam, John
Rooker, J. W.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roper, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hayhoe, Barney
Rossi, Hugh


Haynes, Frank
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Silvester, Fred


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Sims, Roger


Hooley, Frank
Soley, Clive


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Speed, Keith


Hoyle, Douglas
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Janner, Hon Greville
Squire, Robin


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Stallard, A. W.


Jessel, Toby
Stanley, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Stoddart, David


Lamont, Norman
Stott, Roger


Lee, John
Strang, Gavin


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thompson, Donald


Lyell, Nicholas
Tilley, John


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Tinn, James


McCrindle, Robert
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wakeham, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Waldegrave, Hon William


MacGregor, John
Waller, Gary


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ward, John


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Warren, Kenneth


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Watson, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wellbeloved, James


McNally, Thomas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McNamara, Kevin
Wiggin, Jerry


McWilliam, John
Wilkinson, John


Major, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'Sea W)


Marks, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark





Woolmer, Kenneth
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Ian Lang and



Mr. David Hunt


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Ancram, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Arnold, Tom
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Banks, Robert
Marlow, Antony


Bendall, Vivian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Body, Richard
Mayhew, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Bradley, Tom
Molyneaux, James


Brinton, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus


Brotherton, Michael
Osborn, John


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Parry, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Renton, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Cryer, Bob
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Skinner, Dennis


Emery, Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
Stevens, Martin


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Trotter, Neville


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Fry, Peter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ginsburg, David
Wheeler, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Sir Victor



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Heddle, John
Mr Harry Greenway


Kilfedder, James A.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of Regional Policy in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.— [Mr. Cope.]

Orders of the Day — STANDING COMMITTEES ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Ordered,
That during proceedings in the Standing Committee in respect of the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1982, the Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1982, and the Statutory Sick Pay (General) Regulations 1982, paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) shall apply with the substitution in line 41 of 'three hours' for 'one and a half hours'.— [Mr. Cope.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

ENERGY LABELLING

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7298/80 as described in the Department of


Energy's Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda of 5th March 1982 and of 19th May 1982; welcomes the Government's intention to support the directives on harmonisation of any energy labelling of washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators and freezers in the interests of lowering barriers to British exports; and welcomes the Government's intention to proceed on improving energy efficiency of electrical appliances within the United Kingdom on a voluntary rather than mandatory basis.—[Mr. Cope.]

Orders of the Day — Youth Unemployment (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Norman Hogg: Youth unemployment is one of the most tragic consequences of the Government's failure to manage the Scottish economy. Factory after factory in Scotland has closed its doors, whole industries have vanished, and that has brought in its wake a crisis for young people.
Those of us who have attended end-of-term ceremonies at schools in recent weeks are familiar with the serious problems facing young school leavers and their parents. Confidence and youthful optimism have given way to the harsh reality of the current unemployment situation in Scotland.
The Government's economic policy has not worked in any region of Britain, as is evident from the most recent Department of Employment figures, which show that well over 3 million people—13·4 per cent. of all employees—are without a job. In Scotland, 348,831 have no job—15·6 per cent. of all employees. In Strathclyde the unemployment rate is 18·1 per cent., and figures published by the Department of Employment on 20 July show that 34·8 per cent. of the unemployed in Scotland are school leavers.
The Government cannot avoid the fact that they must take a major part of the blame for the present levels of youth unemployment. They have compounded the problems by attacking education and training. Cuts in the education provision at every level and the closure of 16 of the 23 training boards are examples of the Government's approach. The measures referred to in the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland's reply to my parliamentary question on 30 June are no substitute for real training and real jobs.
The Government have even attacked the young people who have jobs. Ministers have claimed that those in employment and engaged in apprentice training earn too much. They want cheap youth labour and they do nothing to find employment for young people, many of whom have good qualifications. We live in the age of the unemployed graduate.
As if all that were not enough, the Government have embarked on a young workers' scheme that subsidises employers who recruit young workers on less than £40 a week. That gives employers a financial incentive to exploit young people.
To return to the central issue of unemployment, 1 million young people under 25 are on the jobless register. Last year only one in two school leavers found a job. In 1983 the figure will drop to one in three and by this time next year 70 per cent. of young persons in Britain's inner city areas will have no job and no prospect of a job and will be left with no promise of future employment. The social consequences that could derive from such a critical situation are fearful to contemplate and neither the Government nor the House can avoid recognising the problem and dealing with it.
The crisis will be relieved only when we cease to have policies aimed at contracting the economy. Expansion would create jobs, but that is not the way of this Administration. I need look no further than my own constituency to see the extent of the crisis and the consequences of three years of Tory rule.
The total number of unemployed in Cumbernauld new town is 4,241–2,023 men, 1,519 women and the 396 young men and 303 young women who are wholly unemployed and on the register at the careers office. A total of 376 are on youth opportunities schemes, but that figure is artificially low and a number of schemes are being held back, awaiting the new training initiative. The number on such schemes is likely to rise to 500 when the school leavers qualify for a training place. I regret to say that the careers office in Cumbernauld never has more than one or two vacancies.
Unemployment in Kirkintilloch follows the same pattern, with adult male unemployment now at 1,506, adult female unemployment 800, young males 219, and young females I64—in othe words, 2,689 people have no jobs. In the Strathkelvin district, 384 are on YOP schemes, 462 youngsters have no jobs and no training places. That means that about 846 young people are wholly unemployed.
Now we find that in Kirkintilloch, Anderson Strathclyde, a most successful company, which is based and managed in Scotland, is faced with a takeover bid. I do not know any employee of the company who supports the bid, nor any manager, or even any Member of Parliament. My hon. Friends and I—and, indeed, Conservative Members—have made our position clear to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We oppose the takeover of the company, and see no justification for it. It would not be in the interests of the company, the work force or the Scottish economy. Indeed, Anderson Strathclyde has an excellent record of engaging young people and providing excellent apprenticeships.
Half our young people leave school without getting an apprenticeship or a vocational preparation. That compares badly with West Germany. Last year, the Scottish Select Committee, which undertook a study of youth unemployment and training, established that only 10 per cent. of Germany's young people go without some kind of formal training. It is under one-fifth in France. Last year, in the United Kingdom, apprenticeships fell by 30 per cent. to under half the level that existed in the 1960s.
My experience is that young people want to work, and I regard it as their right. They do not accept the fashionable argument that mass unemployment will always be with us. Neither do I accept that argument. They do not accept the trendy thesis that new technology means that some will always walk the dole queue. I do not accept that argument either.
Time and again, I have put these arguments to meetings and groups of young people in my constituency, and time and time again they have told me that they want full employment, training and skills. That is the view of senior school pupils. It is certainly the view of the Young Socialists, and it is the view of young people whom I have encountered in youth fellowships and church organisations. Youngsters from all social classes and different backgrounds are unanimous in that view.
We have had this debate several times this Session. The Minister is certainly familiar with the arguments and statistics, and with the catalogue of constituency points made in debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and elsewhere in the House. We are becoming increasingly familiar with the Government's demand that we on the Opposition Benches should say what we would do about it. I shall say a brief word about that. We have constantly argued for an alternative economic strategy, and it is

regrettable that the Government do not appear to listen to us. Our aim is to reduce unemployment to under 1 million within the first five years of a Labour Government coming to office. We shall do that, first, by public investment to create jobs and revitalise our industries and social services. We shall direct that investment to disadvantaged areas. We shall make provision for employment and training subsidies, to encourage firms to recruit and train additional workers. The Government's young workers' scheme will be abolished. We shall provide job creation allowances to assist new labour-intensive activities. These will help, in particular, co-operatives and municipal enterprises.
We shall make provision for training support to increase apprenticeships and off-the-job education and training as part of our wider policy for 16 to 17-year-olds. We shall reduce working time, to share the benefits of rising productivity and to ensure that economic growth creates as many new jobs as possible. The next Labour Government will provide all young people with the opportunity of further education and planned training. All 16 to 17-year-olds, whether in full-time education, at work or unemployed, will have the right to a State student traineeship.
Our proposals include the expansion and improvement of training schemes co-ordinated by the Manpower Services Commission; a statutory obligation on employers to provide training opportunities of an approved standard linked to day or block release; an adequate training allowance with increased scope for trade union negotiation on behalf of young people in employment and an education maintenance allowance of at least £20 per week to allow young people to stay on in full-time education. We shall have to do those things because the Government's economic policy has completely failed the young people of Scotland.
Young people in Scotland see no hope in the present situation. They have no confidence in the Government. I am particularly concerned at the frequent representations that I now receive from parents who have no confidence that when their youngsters leave school that they will obtain employment. There must be another way to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government intend to tackle the present morass into which we appear to have sunk. I am convinced that there must be an entirely different approach to this matter.
It is for the Minister to account for the mess that we are in. He must say what is being done to get Scotland's young people out of the job crisis. I, the trade union movement, indeed, the whole Labour movement, believe that the only way forward now is to adopt the alternative economic strategy for which we are constantly arguing. I hope that the Minister will say something new tonight on how he intends to approach this tragic situation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) for raising what is undoubtedly one of the most worrying problems that we face in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom.
We can all remember how we felt when we left school, college or university, about our job prospects and the careers that we hoped to start. There is no doubt whatever that this is the most depressing time since the Second World War for young people leaving school. We all feel


heartfelt sorrow for the disappointments, frustrations and worries that young people face when they contemplate leaving school today. So many of them are afraid that, without proper qualifications, they may well find themselves unable to obtain a proper job and make their own way in the world. That is a cause of concern throughout the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that that concern is not confined to any party within the House.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of youth unemployment and attributed it, fairly and squarely, to the failure of the Government. He went on to say that it was the result of the failure of the Government's economic policy. I am bound to say that, despite the shared concern to which I have referred, the problem is not confined to the United Kingdom. It is apparent in other parts of the world—in France, the United States, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. Youth unemployment and the lack of job opportunities for young people, particularly those leaving school without qualifications, training or skills, make it extremely difficult to find a job.
It is not a problem that we face alone but one that we share with countries throughout the world. The Government refer to other countries not as an excuse for the situation in the United Kingdom but purely in order to put into perspective with those countries the problem that we face.
We know why the problem exists, in particular in the United Kingdom. Despite the fact that some Opposition Members appear rather bored when we talk about the lack of competitiveness of British industry—it is not a very exciting statement to make—the fact remains that too much of the demand that exists in the British economy is met by imported goods. That is because people prefer to buy, for example, a motor car made in Europe or Japan to a motor car manufactured in the United Kingdom. Too many people in the United Kingdom believe—and who is to question their judgment?—that they get better value for their purchases in that way. The same point applies to television sets and to many other consumer goods.
The demand exists and our difficulty is that too much of that demand is being met not by British industry but by foreign competition. Therefore, we have to recognise the root cause of our unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and its relation to the lack of competitiveness of British industry. It is only by recognising that point, making ourselves aware of it and tackling the problem, as the Government are doing, that we can hope to revive job opportunities for young people as they come on to the job market.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government were failing to provide sufficient funds for education and training. I must take issue with him on that point, because the funds that are made available by the Scottish Education Department for school education and further education in Scotland have been maintained at a very high level, despite the financial constraints under which the Exchequer is bound to operate in these times.
I draw attention to the expenditure per head of the school population. The further education population has never been higher, pupil-teacher ratios have never been better, and we are most anxious that young people should take every opportunity to stay on at school, to go to further education or to take part in one of the several training

schemes that the Government have made available. Apart from the provision of funds through the education budget, very substantial funds—more than £1 billion in the current year—have been made available, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, for the various special programmes and youth training schemes in particular.
The youth training scheme, which is a new initiative, is aimed at making young people better prepared for employment opportunities. There are the changes in the apprenticeship provision which we have planned and are introducing, so that the old-fashioned restrictions which have hindered apprenticeship for so many years will be overcome. That is a result of joint effort and joint negotiation in the Manpower Services Commission, where representatives of employers and trade unions have reached agreement. It is very important for this House and for the country that agreement has finally been reached to modernise our apprentice training and to relate it to standards rather than to time served, and to remove also the very strict age limitations on apprentice training that the old system has maintained for so many years.
It is also encouraging—although it is not surprising at this time—that more young people are staying on at school and that more young people are taking opportunities in further education than ever before. Indeed, the United Kingdom has some leeway to make up in this respect, because there has been too high a proportion of our young people leaving school and not taking the advantage of any further education or training thereafter. The Government are taking those positive steps both in further education, training, apprenticeship schemes and in the special schemes that will provide better opportunities for youngsters to train themselves for employment as and when jobs become available.
The hon. Gentleman was critical of the young workers's scheme and suggested that it was aimed at suppressing wages. It cannot be denied that the wage expected, or paid, to youngsters must affect their job prospects. If one compares the wages paid to young people who have no skill or training and who have left school at 16 with those paid to similar youngsters in Germany, one finds that our wages are too high. Young people have a market value in employment. If, because of practices that were established largely through trade union negotiation, those wages reach a level that employers find unattractive, it adds to the number of those who cannot find employment. The purpose of the young workers' scheme is to reduce the cost to employers of employing young unskilled people. It has become much too expensive to employ them. Young people are competing, not just with other youngsters, but with married women whose families have grown up or are at school and who, because of their previous experience, may be more attractive to an employer.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the takeover bid for Anderson Strathclyde. I am aware of the anxiety about the proposed merger with Charter Consolidated, especially about its effect on employment and on the Scottish economy. Anderson Strathclyde is one of Scotland's largest independent manufacturing companies. I welcome the recent decision of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Hogg: I assure the Minister that my hon. Friends and I will make submissions to the commission spelling out the reasons why we are opposed to the bid.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that and I am sure that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be delighted to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
There is no doubt that young people are anxious about entering the job market. Of course they wish to work and I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. I hope that he will agree that the countries with the lowest unemployment are those with the lowest inflation and those that have made the most use of modern technology, such as West Germany and Japan. With that lesson clearly in mind, the Government have made their target the reduction of inflation which will, we hope, lead to lower interest rates and also give every incentive to companies to introduce new technology. The Government believe

that this must be the mainstream of economic policy if we are to provide the job opportunities that young people have every right to expect.
I shall not dwell on Labour's alternative policies, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I understand the obligation that he must feel to describe these policies, even in a short debate. Everything that he says and everything I have read about these policies suggests that the Labour Party has learnt nothing from its experience in Government, when inflation and unemployment increased. I hope that the lessons of the need to reduce inflation to the lowest possible level and so provide better job opportunities will not simply be learnt on the Government side of the House but that they will also be learnt by the House and the country as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o' clock.